LOCKOUT (2012)
a review by Evan Landon
After my review on Fortress, I wanted to follow it up with Fortress 2: Re-Entry, but I couldn't find it on VHS (which is still my favorite format. I know, shut up) and it costs like $2.99 to stream, so I picked this little gem off of Tubi instead. I cannot say it is a better movie, in the least bit, however the special effects are light years better. The advertisement breaks actually make it somewhat more watchable, in fact.
It does not matter if Guy Pearce is a great actor or a good leading man for a film because he has proven that he can be. He absolutely can if you give him a good script and good actors to work with, but when most of your actors do their lines from sound stages across continents.
What I truly find hilarious about this movie is how it says at the very beginning that it is from an original story by Luc Besson when John Carpenter sued him and his production company for €450k because it is literally the identical plot for Escape From L.A., which kind of makes you think less of the French director in more ways than one. That being said, he did also get a writing credit on this, so that is even a bigger let down than the story because this movie contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. Let me run through a few of them for you:
“Don't get me wrong. It's a dream vacation. I mean, I load up. I go into space. I get inside the maximum-security nuthouse. Save the President's daughter, if she's not dead already. Get past all the psychos who've just woken up. I'm thrilled that you would think of me.”
“Are you all mouth, no trousers?”
“You're a big girl, right? Here's an apple and a gun. Don't talk to strangers, shoot them.”
I am just going to stop there before my brain turns into mush. Believe me, it is worse hearing two people who are not even on the same continent much less the same room have such enthralling conversations. If you cannot tell, it lacks all of the subtlety and charm you would usually find in a Luc Besson script. The story is as much to blame too though; there are so many plot holes that I'm surprised the actors did not fall into one and get spit out into orbit and through the screen. As far as the special effects go, they hold up just fine, despite the lack of realism or overall physics, but whatever. I don't care about that shit when everything else is noticeably terrible.
Anyways, Lockout had very little success in the worldwide market making $32 million against one of Besson's more meager $20 million budgets, but I don't think that includes the money he got sued for by one of the greatest directors of all time over the grounds of plagiarism. This is not the worst of his crimes, however, but that is a lawsuit of a completely different kind from a completely different film. You can look that one up, if you feel like it.
2 out of 5
FORTRESS (1992)
a review by Evan Landon
Remember when you could put Christopher Lambert in any wacky movie with a non-sensical plot and it automatically turns into a moderate success? What a great time to be alive. If you weren't there for the VHS era, you truly did miss out, in my humble opinion. Some people disagree with me and they are just WRONG! I have somewhere around 1,300 VHS tapes and that is not because it is a better format; it just holds so much nostalgia for me and a whole slew of others that it just drips with Euphoria, from the grainy picture to the hum of the machine heads inside.
Somewhere, in that hot mess bulky mediums, lies this cherished 1992 sci-fi action gem that caught major speed after a decent stint in the theaters through it's very same VHS release. Director Stuart Gordon (of Re-Animator and From Beyond acclaim) was tapped to helm the project after Miramax and Dimension Films had secured the rights to it, who hired actor Jeffrey Combs in a large supporting role continuing their list of myriad collaborations together. Kurtwood Smith turns in another solid performance as the half-human cyborg, Prison Director Poe, serving as the film's menacing, twisted antagonist who wants Brennick's pregnant wife for himself.
Certainly, science fiction films such as these work on a very basic premise, yet somehow falter in their execution for a multitude of reasons. In this instance, the plot goes something like this: in the dystopian year of 2017, the United States has outlawed having more than one child to avoid overpopulation. With the existence of such laws, the underground prisons ran by the artificial intelligence computers of major corporations are so overcrowded that the prisoners themselves are forced to dig further into the Earth to make room for the massive influx of criminals. After his wife is pregnant with their second child (their firstborn dying during child birth), ex-army officer John Henry Brennick (Lambert) and she are caught at the border of the Canadian Soviet Socialist Republic and sentenced to life in prison. With the help his motley crew of cellmates, Brennick must fight his way back to wife and escape the eponymous fortress to freedom.
What is fantastic is that story does not fall into this often occurring trope, as the story has enough twists and turns with the adequate amount of character development to keep the audience interested through it's ninety-one minute run time. After his work on Star Wars, Robocop, and Altered States, the late Robert Blalack does a fantastic job given the restraints of their budget to edge out special effects that still hold up over thirty years later. Seriously, the practical effects in this movie hold up better than some of the mess we get stuck with today; the computer generated effects leave a lot to be desired, however.
The film was absolutely not a critical darling, as most movies in this genre seem to always get stuck with, but it did make $48 million worldwide against a $15 million budget prompting Tri-Star Pictures to greenlight a franchise-killing sequel that did nothing near the success of the original. Since garnering an ever growing cult fanbase, most of the initial distaste for this movie has died down. If you enjoy a science fiction action adventure (with subtle hints of body horror from a director who is very well versed in the genre), you could do a hell of a lot worse than this cult classic.
3.5 Out Of 5
SPECIES II (1998)
a review by Evan Landon
...might as well, right?
After my review of Species, I happened to catch it's sequel, which has a very special place in my cold, horror-filled heart. Where else can you find a movie even hornier, gorier, and more depraved than the original whilst still having some semblance of a cogent plot stemming from the original? If not, why not? Well, even though it does go more into the origin of the eponymous Species, it is considered one of the worst films of 1998 and the box office totals definitely illustrate that.
In this cinematic offering, we are reconnected with two of the three survivors from the last movie, Michael Madsen and Marg Helgenberger (who fucked in the last movie, but hate each other now for whatevs reason), who are tasked with finding the exact clone of “Sil” from the first movie, “Eve”, after she escapes from the laboratory the latter was operating. As it turns out, “Eve” was written just in case they could not get Henstridge to reprise her role from the original (she did), but they also rewrote the part of Forest Whitaker's empath, Dan Smithson, for Mykelti Williamson. James Cromwell and Richard Belzer play a United States Senator and President, respectfully, which is a sight to behold in itself.
After the events of the first movie, it had left sequel bait with a rat eating another rat with a lizard-ish tongue to snatch it up, but that has nothing to do with this one, even though that would have been a more natural direction to go in. Someone had the idea of having two alien species (Species 2... Get it?) and then another person had an idea that it should be a dude this time because that would mean they could make more little aliens, then another person said it should be a human astronaut getting infected by one on a planet. Then writer Chris Brancato and producer Frank Mancuso Jr. just said “fuck it” and threw all the ideas in a blender for this creation, to which I am all for and definitely support batshit insane ideas such as this. At times, it kind of seems like a hardcore episode of the X-Files, if I'm going to be perfectly honest, which is odd because Brancato was also the writer of the season one episode, “Eve”. How apropos, is it not?
Not everybody thinks the same way I do, so this movie ended up failing as one of the biggest box office bombs of the nineties pulling in only $19.2 million against a $35 million budget. In fact, it was hardly a critical darling either, but that hardly matters in science fiction horror sequels such as this.
There is a lot of great use of practical effects. CGI can only take you so far, yknow, so when they use them much more sparingly in this one to rely on practical ones, it really makes a difference. I do not think this is a terrible follow-up to a classic such as the original, in all honesty. Like I always say, don't just listen to critics or even anyone else (unless you truly value their opinions). Go see it for yourself and formulate your own opinions. Or don't, yknow. Do whatever you want, I guess. It's your life. However, I have a soft spot in my heart for this strange, grotesque, popcorn flick.
The alien death scene via dick suffocation in the finale might be worth the run time alone, but there are a lot of scenes like that.
3 out of 5
SPECIES (1995)
a review by Evan Landon
Y'know, in all honesty, there is not a single year that goes by that I do not watch Species or at least am reminded of it in some way since it came out in 1995. Granted, it does take a lot from other movies before it, so it is not breaking any new ground here; however, it does have a certain flair and passion that pushes it into the upper echelon of most sci-fi horror movies around that time.
Being in middle school when this film came out, I did not see it until it was released on VHS and I was very much into it at my adolescent stage for some very important reasons; the most important ones I am sure you can guess. But I would be remiss not to tell you that the plot is the main reason that I can only describe as this: scientists are given alien DNA to fuck around with and they find out it is an alien embryo that grows at an accelerated rate that's only function is to spawn which will lead to the demise of the human race. A motley crew of savvy, motivated personnel including:
~ Michael Madsen plays mercenary “Preston Lennox”, who coming off his meteoric rise to fame with Free Willy & Reservoir Dogs serves in a rare role as this story's main protagonist. He also gets laid in this one. Is Mr. Blonde hot? I honestly don't know. You tell me in the comments.
~ Sir Ben Kingsley slums it up with us in this grotesque, b-movie style popcorn flick as the scientific creator of “Sil”, obviously not playing a role even resembling Ghandi.
~ Natasha Henstridge makes her film debut as the before mentioned “Sil” who desperately has an allergic reaction to clothes, so she just doesn't wear any.
~ Forest Whitaker does his best “psychic, but not a psychic” impression as an “empath” (is that what an empath does? I think they might have got that part wrong) that still baffles me every time I see it.
~ Alfred Molina and Marg Helgenberger round out the cast as two scientists of whatever I can't remember, but are very much apart of the team, even though I don't know why. Whatever. Molina did win an award for reading the novelization of this flick though, so that's something.
The genius plot behind this sexy, blood soaked masterpiece is one Dennis Feldman who had the idea when he read an article by Arthur C. Clarke about how insurmountable the odds are that any alien craft locating or visiting Earth. Instead, he penned a police procedural that followed scientists that were able to wetwork information sent to build the species themselves, noting that it would be impossible to tell what maleficent beings would answer our space transmissions as to where we are to make contact.
Well, chaos most definitely ensues, from beginning to end, and there is plenty of almost sex scenes that somehow end up with some pretty gnarly kills. I applaud the lead up to the CGI end (that did NOT age well, at all) that used mostly prosthetics based off of more artwork by Swiss artist H.R. Giger (who had designed the Xenomorphs from the Alien). To keep the creature Sil version from blowing up the budget, they just kept former model-turned-actor Henstridge naked for most of the run time and you can't be mad at that.
Like I said, I grew up on this movie, so whenever I catch it, I watch it with no question. I was not the only one who loved it though, as it pulled in $113.3 million against a $35 million budget making it not just a hit, but worthy of not one, not two, but three sequels which I have seen. Maybe I should review those next. Hmmm...
3.5 out of 5
Stupid Games (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
The proverb states: “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” - by y'know, whoever said that.
I will admit that it is very hard not to be overly critical of this flick, but I always give my honest opinion whenever I am asked for it, so let's try and not focus too much on what does not work in this film. Shall we?
The premise goes something like this: after a one night stand, a woman asks her friends over to play a board game with the fella and two of his close friends. Welp, much to their dismay, this magical, mythological board game has some dire consequences to hand out to each participant. Pretty standard horror movie tropes right off the bat, so it is not treading any new ground here. An often used plotline like this does not constitute a bad movie; in fact, sometimes sticking to singular, oft told stories such as this allows for room not usually allowed in more complicated ones.
The issues with such aspiring films like this one are usually some of the more common ones you would think of, such as poor production value, horrendous editing, and horrific sound design. Believe it or not, that is NOT the case here because the camera work, editing, sound, and overall quality are very apparent with how well it was done in this low-budget indie film. This movie looks like a $10 million film even tho it was shot on $10k, which is probably the most impressive part about it, by far. The problems with Stupid Games is everything that happens in front of the camera.
The wooden acting can easily be forgiven because it is painfully obvious to the viewer that these are all newcomers to the format, no matter how hard they may profess that they are veterans. Grant Terzakis is by far the standout in this ensemble with his portrayal of the maintenance man who unluckily accepts an empty slot when one of the characters pulls a no show whose performance reminds me of a young Jeffrey Combs. Unfortunately, they do not do a whole lot with any of it, which is not any of the fault of the actors.
The dialogue in such a simple concept of a horror movie demands it be more colorful than simple “getting to know each other” engagements in conversations that leave the characters with nothing to really build off of. The story could have used a little more meat to it too, but again, there is only so much room with a movie that literally takes place in one room. It becomes more and more apparent as this linear story progresses that nothing incredibly revolutionary or startling is bound to happen, so the viewer is left waiting for a jump scare or even a decent death scene which does not happen. Again, given the budget, gory death scene was probably out of consideration, but with the talent of the ones behind the scenes a couple of good jump scares would definitely give it some gravitas. The problem is that there is absolutely no tension to cash in on.
Where Stupid Games falters has nothing to do with the value of it's production because it is fantastic with such a small budget, even down to it's close-ups and camera pans. For such an ambitious picture, the biggest issue could be easily fixed with more work on it's script, from the dialogue to the characters. That is something that comes with practice, however, and that is a lot more for it than against it.
2 Out Of 5
Independence Daysaster (2013)
a review by Evan Landon
In 1996, Roland Emmerich directed a semi-incredible screenplay (with the help of producer Dean Devlin) that took America and the world by storm. After working together on the motion picture Stargate, the two co-wrote the entire film on the back of a napkin and sold it to 20th Century Fox to behold the magnum opus we all know as Independence Day. I'm just kidding, they did not write it on a napkin, or maybe they did, I don't know. I could probably fit.
Thusly, in 2013, the Syfy Channel released the Canadian science fiction mockbuster, Independence Daysaster. Now, you may be thinking to yourself, “Why would Canada make a movie about an American holiday?” or “Why is anyone in their right minds reviewing this movie?” or “What the fuck is a daysaster?” All of these questions probably have answers, so I will try my bestest to answer them.
As the film's inspiration did over a decade before, Independence Daysaster boasts an all-star ensemble with such industry heavyweights as Supergirl's Andrea Brooks, Stargate: Atlantis & SG-1's Garwin Sanford, Final Destination 3 and The Ring Two's Ryan Merriman, and most notably That Thing You Do's Tom Everett Scott as the President of the United States. Bet you never thought you would ever see that statement in print, yet here we are. However, dude does get a President Whitmore-esque speech like Bill Pullman had in Independence Day to which is maybe worth the run time itself, even though it is to an off-screen military character that maybe has one or two lines total. Just watch that, if you can even find it.
Despite the human factor, which Merriman portrays Scott's fireman brother who saves the day, we never get any funky-looking alien CGI monsters, so I fault it for that more than anything else. The alien craft come off like fidget-spinners that have a difficult time against a green screen in the Canadian wilderness (also known as “Moose Ridge”), but maybe the most egregious atrocity has to be the hacker girl's bangs. I probably could have looked up her name, but my time here on Earth is limited.
The overall budget was around $1.8 million, so to any of you hopeful filmmakers out there think that is not enough to make a film, low and behold this incredible waste of time and money. It was released on DVD after it's Syfy channel debut. No gore, no story, and lame ass special effects will not make this watchable unless you have it on in the background.
You do get some metaphysical questions later on, such as “Why am I writing about this?” or “What am I doing with my life?” They did get an IMDb credit though, so that is a lot more than most of us have. Got me, man.
0.5 Out Of 5
In A Violent Nature (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
It's been a while since Jason Voorhies has shown his hockey mask since the schlock we got with Jason X (or Jason Goes To Space), so I suppose this will have to do for the time being. That being said, I should probably do a review of the Hatchet series because that was spectacular, but I'm getting off topic.
In A Violent Nature is a 2024 horror flick of the slasher variety from the twisted mind of newcomer Chris Nash who wrote and directed this art/grindhouse gore-fest. Everyone in this a newcomer, as a matter of fact. None of the cast had been in anything of relevance either, aside from Lauren-Marie Taylor who had a somewhat forgettable death in Friday The 13th Part 2, but I don't think she really counts because she does not show up until the end to pad the run time with one of the most inane monologue that had nothing to do with anything that happened. Nash went on record to say he did that on purpose to show how awkward it would be to pick up a hitchhiker after everything that person had been through, which I don't understand at all.
Now, I am absolutely certain that I am not the only person who felt like this movie dragged a lot (of bodies), but that was that arthouse vibe Nash was looking for and probably how it was screened first in the notorious “Midnight” program at the prestigious Sundance Festival in Utah earlier this year. I swear, the entire movie felt like a walkthrough of that Friday The 13th video game that came out a few years ago where you play the game from Jason's perspective. The “time jumps” that take place even makes it feel like he is teleporting like he does in the game mimicking the uncanny way Jason could in the movies.
The excruciatingly simple plot matters not in the least here, but I doubt anyone who loves this style of horror gives a shit. It is all about the slayings and there are some pretty memorable ones. There are also a couple of lame ones too, so that kind of evens out. This is also our first introduction to our character through the eavesdropping of the group of partying stoners off in the distance that, again, is reminiscent of hearing the victims off in the distance of the Friday The 13th game I mentioned earlier, so there is nothing invested there. You get maybe a couple of lines of useful exposition; the rest is following your undead killer trudging through the woods to only the sounds of the Canadian wilderness to keep his lumbering view company.
Have I mentioned there is no score? Yeah. There is zero music, aside from the cheesy, generic shit one of them is playing at the campfire in the beginning. That's all you get. The fact there is no score and the tedious monologue that goes nowhere before the film abruptly ends is so reminiscent of No Country For Old Men, so if you were missing some of the kills on camera from that film, you can make up for it all with this one.
In A Violent Nature is hardly an award-winning film and the plot is almost non-existent, so you give absolutely no shits for the victims in the slightest. The kills are pretty gnarly though and the “3rd person shooter”-esque approach to the filmmaking is kind of original, but only if you can differentiate it from any video game of the same style. It made waves at Sundance enough to have a limited release in theaters to the tune of $4.2 million against a fairly modest budget, but IFC lost very little quickly sending it to it's streaming service on Shudder to which both are owned by AMC. It has been divisive to fans of the genre because of it's pacing and stylistic approach, but it is awesome to see unknown filmmakers think outside of the normal banality of conventional storytelling to try something new and I definitely dig that.
3.5 Out Of 5
ATLAS (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
If Ayn Rand were still alive, she would have shrugged with Atlas too.
Let's just get this out of the way: I don't care how others rate movies because usually they have some sort of agenda behind it; be it movie ticks, commissions, clout with publications, or $20 for a 5 star review on certain aggregate websites. I don't get any of that shit, so my opinions are purely unbiased. I stopped listening to what everyone else thinks a long time ago, so I could not tell you who or why anyone liked this film. That being said, this movie sucks.
I went into it the same way I do most movies I know nothing about: I will try to find something I like, no matter what, and that was the special effects were pretty damn good. I think if the director had a better screenplay to work with, it would have been a much more interesting film because the first 5 minutes were pretty damn good! The Rock's favorite director, Brad Peyton, tries his hand here with a script written by a guy nobody has ever heard of, so I don't think this entirely his fault. Then J Lo sticks her head in and the rest of the 120 minute run time is you looking at her tired, resting bitch face with flashing lights of the console reflecting off her frizzled, nappy ass hair and cracked foundation make-up enough to give a blind man epilepsy.
This movie was a chore to get through, needless to say.
The story is basically the same as any “Jenny From Da Block” movie you've ever seen: she is a scorned woman (this time by Artificial Intelligence) who has to overcome her differences to find love (this time with Artificial Intelligence) after fighting an uphill battle and discover more about herself than she thought was possible. This time, it's set in space! This also might be the third or fourth time a movie has straight up ripped off Exo Squad, that I continue to howl at the moon for since my childhood.
In all seriousness, I don't think Artificial Intelligence works that way, nor in the way they try to make it work in this movie. Of course, one could say that it “evolved o'er time” or whatever. Whenever I hear that, it reeks of lazy storytelling.
With all the bullshit hitting the fan with J Lo as of recent, I don't think anyone is asking for her to star in anything, but I'm sure she has mansions to pay for and publicists to ignore, so this must be par for the course with her career on stilts. She has to give away tickets to her own shows, so she definitely should not be resting her laurels on her acting career instead because those have never been all that great.
This $100 million shart went straight to Netflix, so as always, you will never get full disclosure on how much it made. It's easy to assume that it would have bombed if they released it in theaters, but let's steer away from hypotheticals and just call it a shitshow of a washed-up narcissist who liked being in that robot cockpit so she could smell her own farts. There are much better things to watch on Netflix, especially if you have 2 hours to kill.
1.5 out of 5
IF (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
I think Hollywood is still trying to figure out what to do with Ryan Reynolds. Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of the actor, but after they tried him out in rom coms and bewildering dramatic roles (Women In Gold, I'm looking at you) it seemed as if they wanted to try him out as a superhero which ended up working out just fine. The little stutter steps of Blade:Trinity and Green Lantern are forgivable, but not a lot of actors make it back from two huge flops like that. Three, if you count X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but he was such a fan of Deadpool that he snagged it before anyone else could. I can't really blame him though because Deadpool has always been my faves since appearing in the Rob Liefeld's X-Force when I was a kid, but I digress.
I bring that up because I don't remember a whole lot of this film, even though I saw it in the theater, but because I keep thinking of scenes from Free Guy instead (it was a much better movie). While I can understand the desire for his kids to see his movies, I can't help in thinking that he has slipped into that watered down version of his schtick to sleepwalk through some very expensive roles. Again, I am not mad at him for that, or anything else really. It just may or may not already be an old trope for him that he can float along to for the rest of his career.
In this one, John Krasinski wrote, produced, and co-starred in this live-action/animation family comedy, so apparently that is his new thing now. The story seems a little contrived, as the script kind of goes in all sorts of directions after establishing young Cailey Fleming as his daughter dealing with the loss of her mother and his upcoming heart surgery. Reynolds plays her neighbor who shows her all of the imaginary friends (IFs) that only certain people can see (played by a cornucopia of celebrity voiceovers). As he is wore out and apathetic at his age after decades of helping find them real life friends, who discarded them once they got older, his plan is to hand the reigns over and her to serve as his apprentice while she deals with the dark sadness looming over her own life. You can kind of see where this is going.
As far as the animation to live-action effects are concerned, it is done well enough to where sometimes you don't even notice it and the characters interact with the live actors seamlessly enough. That is definitely a plus.
I was worried that I was taking my 8 year-old niece to the theater to watch the Blumhouse horror movie Imaginary that came out a few months earlier, but that one wasn't scary anyways, so that's just whatever. That being said, this one felt like a mix of Fantastic Beasts and Big Fish not only in tone, but overall nuances and lessons learned which are perfectly fine and somewhat important for a certain niche of younger viewers who may or may not be going through something similar.
It may be a little early to gauge how this one fared in the box office, but it should be in its last weekend in theaters, so it might be able to call it at $173.6 million against a bloated $110 million budget allowing for Paramount and both Reynolds and Krasinski's production companies to almost break even. It is definitely re-watchable, but you did not miss anything by skipping it in its theater run.
Anyways, you should 100% watch this instead of the Blumhouse one I almost watched a second time. Maybe I will do that one somewhere down the road, as well, or maybe not because that movie kind of sucked. Oh well.
3 out of 5
CIVIL WAR (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
I want to get this straight before I start this review: this movie is not a “war movie”, but there is one going on in the background of the “Civil War” variety. This movie isn't about politics at all, in fact. Come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure what this movie is about…
I guess what this whole eponymous “Civil War” is all about is a break-up of the United States in a dystopian universe where California and Texas have decided to leave the nation because the president has taken a third term in what a lot of political theorists call a “nightmare scenario” for democracy. Yes, you heard that right. Only California and Texas have teamed up, then there's the Florida group, then the Portland territory, ughhh... Have you ever looked at a map of this goddamn movie?!
Pretty fuckin nuts, right? I honestly feel like you have to keep this map on you at all times just watching this movie.
I have always enjoyed Alex Garland's work. He not only wrote 28 Days Later and worked on the sequel, but wrote and directed Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Dredd to which I enjoyed them all. Devs has some decent reviews and Men was kind of weird, so maybe that is where we can start to see some cracks showing. This one truly did throw me off though. I honestly could not pick this out of a line-up of Alex Garland movies, it made that little of an impact on me.
The story goes, as follows: in the near future, America falls into a “Civil War” for whatever reasons that they refuse to get into, so let's just assume it does not really matter. Kirsten Dunst plays a plank of wood subbing as a war journalist that is so desensitized to the whole thing that she reacts to absolutely nothing and looks like she is asleep the whole trip. Wagner Moura plays a poor man's version of Pedro Pascal as her writer/accomplice who is drunk and stoned more than any normal person, but maybe that has to do with character's coping. Cailee Spaeny does an ample job of playing another two-dimensional character who is a novice photojournalist that ends up joining up with them and becoming an apprentice to Dunst's protagonist. Nick Offerman, as a president, is far too hilarious of a thought to even take seriously and Stephen McKinley Henderson has a throw away part as a mentor to the group. Jesse Plemons shows up uncredited as a racist, ultra-national militant because he is married to Dunst in real life and basically steals the show with maybe the scene or two he is even in. It should show you a little bit of the depth these characters have if that can happen.
I think the edgy premise of such a background kind of betrays the basic story here which is hardly even about the politics involved in why this country is war torn. You are just sort of thrown into this so hard that you may think you got whiplash, even after the cold opening of the president addressing the people which even in itself is just surreal because the president scenes are what book end this affair.
If you completely forget about the “Civil War” in Civil War, it will make a lot more sense to you. This is a message about human nature and how we glorify the most depraved parts of humanity in whatever chance there is to gain publicity at the expense of others. It's more about responsibility with journalism itself and how ethos and morality play into it and I can admire that a little bit. It's just that message gets bogged down and diluted when the backdrop is something more interesting that is barely even discussed while they suffer through it. In the end, you are left with the question of “okay... but why?”
A24 continues to make intriguing decisions with the choices of film they decide to go with, but some of them are more questionable than they are legitimate hits. What they do have going for them, in their endeavor to give the non-mainstream, indie films and filmmakers a platform, is that they do not poor more money than is needed into each film which will in turn either make their budget back or blow it out of the water. At $50 million, this was definitely a subtle hit pulling in $114 million world wide.
It has been given some very kind reviews from the usual suspects, but this one left me bewildered and kind of just “meh”. So that's where it sits with me: right in the meh-ddle.
2.5 out of 5
The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
I remember distinctly the first time I saw the trailer for Last Voyage of the Demeter and just shaking my head as they butchered Bullet With Butterfly Wings with some stupid techno downbeat. Why do they do that shit? They take a song that everybody knows, then shoehorn that shit in so hard that it's comical. “The world is a vampire” with a bunch of reverb and synth drums while a monster stalks his prey is so corny and lazy that I want to punch a kitten. “Oh, it's a movie about vampires? Ohhhh let's put that one Smashing Pumpkins song in it and make it suck.” Talentless, generic hacks are behind that brilliance on every level, I'm telling you.
After seeing the 1931 Tod Browning movie as a kid, I immediately wanted to read the 1897 Bram Stoker novel from where it originated, and I have to say that it was not the kind of read I was expecting. The entire novel is told through letters, journals, and newspaper articles which is not the kind of thing one would expect when it comes to one of the first horror stories, but that also was what gave it its appeal, I think. It was different... Just because something is different does not make it good; however, this one was good enough to be adapted into a stage play in 1924 by Hamilton Dean & John L. Balderston. Hey, that was 100 years ago!
I bring the whole Dracula origin because that is the part in the novel (Chapter 7, to be exact) where it is told through the Captain's Log which I found the most tedious and somewhat boring. When they said that they were doing a film based on that, I was very quick to dismiss it when it finally arrived, but watching it gave me a different feeling altogether. Was it a good feeling? Meh.
What I did enjoy about this movie was how they were able to somewhat build a narrative out of a nothing burger in the novel. The gore is adequate for CGI, so I don't worry too much about that because there are some okay close-ups that make up for it practically. The acting is on point too with Liam Cunningham as The Captain, David Dastmalchian as his first mate, and Corey Hawkins as the ship's doctor. The only problem I have with having a black doctor on the boat in the 19th century is that there were not a lot of black doctors (Cambridge alumni or not) around at that time, so it's shoved in there pretty hard with no real reason. They acknowledge it, but that does not change the conveniency of the writing. Then there is the Transylvanian woman who was placed on the boat for Dracula to snack on, so those boxes got ticked for the suits because everyone needs to have representation in every movie nowadays.
What did not work was mostly the lack of gore or “Dracula” himself. We are used to seeing ol' Drac as a beguiling count who borders on romantic, then crosses that border. Also, the fog and mist coalescing with the lack of lighting and flowing motions of the camera makes this difficult to see, much less watch. Although the acting is great, the characters and dialogue between are not interesting enough to truly value and what would stand as a story is very flimsy; but again, there was not much to work with in one chapter of a novel that is basically just a captain's log. When you have tentpoles so weak to build upon, I guess what you want is something outrageous to gain some weight.
What is the story, you ask? A 19th Century English supply ship named the “Demeter” is coming from Romania to Britain and its contents happen to contain a monster that feasts on human blood. Chaos ensues, as the crew not only try to make it to shore, but also to save their lives. Maybe even their souls!
The Last Voyage of the Demeter is an interesting look at the most overlooked part of the source material, but nobody really has any original ideas anymore, so might as well. Released by DreamWorks Pictures, it pulled in $21.8 million against a $45 million budget, so I would not expect to see a sequel that was teased at the end. This is the end, for this movie, anyways. With all the other “Dracula” movies out there, I'd say go with one of those instead if you are looking for the classic Dracula character. It's literally just a giant CGI man-bat version of it, which works and doesn't at the same time.
2.5 out of 5
ABIGAIL (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
It's astounding how these kind of movies are the ones that get the green light these days from major motion pictures, but hey, I ain't complaining! This nice little romp is just what the world needed to wash the taste of all those reboots and sequels with thousands of pencil pushers changing a fun picture into something it is not. That is EXACTLY why I said it's astounding that it got the green light.
It would not spoil anything to tell you what this movie is about because it basically tells you going into it, even in the trailers, which some people took exception to. In this case, I do not think that is the case.
A team of six mercenaries with their own separate abilities kidnap a 12 year-old ballerina and are tasked with watching her for 24 hours, then they will be paid a $50 million ransom. Sounds simple, right? Well, not if the 12 year-old ballerina is a centuries-old vampire! What ensues is a cat and mouse game covering a mansion that twists and turns more than the plot even attempts to do.
You see, in movies like this, you are always facing an uphill battle because the story and characters are what are deemed paramount. Or universal. I should say “universal” because they are the ones that distributed it. You could say that this movie suffers from that, but I don't think so because once you realize what kind of movie this is, it really does not take anything away from it. The characters are not very rich or deep, but they solve that in the very beginning of the script when it is revealed that the six mercenaries do not know each other, so back stories are not really important. They are all just greedy. Problem solved!
Once this movie gets going about halfway in, it really is held together with a lot of fun in ways the 5 most interesting characters make this whole thing work. The dialogue is drab, but poignant, sometimes hilarious. The acting is sub-par, but that is not why one would sit down and watch this. The special effects and gore are top notch though, so once that kicks in, you won't even know where the time went.
Radio Silence Productions initially started writing the film almost immediately after the SAG-AFTRA strike in April 2023, then casted and started filming almost immediately afterwards. The excellent director duo of Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett were tapped, as well as screenwriter Guy Busick, who had all worked on Ready or Not and the new Scream movies to great acclaim.
With a budget of $28 million against a box office of $35.6 million, it would be a huge stretch to call this one a success, but I have a feeling this one will have some legs in the horror, cult classic circles for a long time.
The final words in the film are a simple “What the fuck?” Yes. What the fuck, indeed, movie. What the fuck, indeed.
3.5 out of 5
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
I really, truly do try not to destroy movies anymore, or at least, not as much anymore. This one is going to be a bit of an anomaly for me, however, because this movie is built for anyone to just hate right off the bat. That sort of shit actually serves to entice me to watch some of these lesser-known or seen movies, so that is not a turn-off for me. Not at all.
Okay. Let's talk about the good things first. It is an A24 screenplay that was acquired from a spec script written by Kristen Roupenian, then rewritten for the screen by Sarah DeLappe, who both have some very interesting credits as writers. Halina Reijn was then tapped by David Hinojosa to direct the film after her first English-speaking film following her work on the industry-adored Dutch film, Instinct. Not a bad group on paper, if you ask me.
Now, let's talk about what does NOT work for me.
To be as nice as I can be, this movie is not meant for everybody; in fact, I am not sure this movie was even meant for anyone in the very niche was shooting for. The characters are as unlikable as the script itself that teeters on nonsense. If “Oh shit, we're gonna die!”, “Oh, let's stop the tears and wait for the newest song to pop off”, or “Oh wait, you had sex with who?” with some of the worst acting and dialogue you could not even feign, even if you had mediocre actors. By the way, the biggest name on this marquis is Pete Davidson, and thank fucking Christ he dies so early on, that he remains a plot point and not a character in the film afterwards. Did I mention the acting was horrific? Yes. When it is this fragile, you care nothing when a script comes your way, so don't be mad about an actor not being believable or even likable. It's just gone through too many hands at this point and you could possibly even blame the studio for how transparent of an idiotic movie this turned out to be.
This movie garnered waves for how brilliant it was because of it's societal look at how a new generation identifies together, but I don't see any of these characters as relatable at all. We can face facts that it was catering to a certain crowd that may or may not stick up for it.
Apparently, the reviews are in, and the fans say this one was a triumph, which makes absolutely no sense to me. The music is even lauded for how progressive it is, but it just sounded like mushmouth garbage done on Frooty Loops. Maybe, perhaps, I have no idea what is entertaining anymore or maybe watching a bunch of narcissistic, insufferable Gen Z nepo babies play narcissistic, insufferable Gen Z nepo babies just isn't my cup of tea. I'll look into that one day. In the meantime, fuck this movie.
1 out of 5
INFESTED/(vermines) (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
This one has flew so far under the radar, that I didn't even know it existed until a few days ago when we watched it together in our Monster Fam group. Gone are the days in the early 2000's where French horror stretched the boundaries of what is “acceptable” on screen. While this 2023 creature feature by Shudder does not quite do that, the atmosphere is so palpable that you feel like you are right there with the characters of the film.
Speaking of the characters, none of them are all that fleshed out, or even likable, but that is par for the course in movies like this. The main character is explicitly despicable, as from the very start he is trying to switch from selling drugs to the people in his apartment complex to selling them faux designer shoes. I won't go into how his hair gives away how big of a douchebag he is, but he really is the only one with anything resembling a character arc. I guess maybe his best friend does too because he is scared for most of the film, then does something heroic at the end, but I don't think that spoils anything. The cute French Palestinian girl is a bit of a weird one because she is supposedly a cop, but that part of her character is lost very quickly and never explored. Her boyfriend also has an interesting introduction, as he is against killing any animals, but when he shifts his values in the matter of a minute, we discover more about the spiders themselves.
Oh... I'm sorry, this movie is about mutated spiders from the desert that the protagonist gets from buying his cheap knock off shoes from. I honestly thought the movie was going to be about shoes for the first half hour because of how much they talked about them. When the spiders start taking over the building though, all that nonsense is out the window. Think Arachnophobia meets Rec. That's a pretty good description.
On a side note, I found this peculiar: the name of the movie in French is “Vermines” to which I had to posit a thought. Most likely, we associate “vermin” to be rodents that inhabit such apartment complexes, and even though it could be said the same for the spiders as an invasive species, perhaps it meant more of the humans inhabiting the domicile itself. I only preclude this from the measure to which the police force sent to control the outbreak only wanted to keep them from leaving as to not spread, which could be a metaphor for how society views the lower class... Just a thought.
Being all en francais, it may be a bit difficult for anyone that hates subtitles in their movies, but even then, I think it is enjoyably enough to where you don't even really pay attention to it. Speaking to the atmosphere of the film, director Sébastien Vaniček does an incredible job of bringing you into the very space that these venomous arachnids take up in. He is going on to head up the next “Evil Dead” spin-off, so that will be a treat! I know, I know... But I will definitely watch it.
It's difficult to say how well this movie did financially because it was sent straight to Shudder (which, by the way, is the only streaming platform I feel okay paying for), nor how much was spent on it, but given the release and production, it was definitely on an indie-scale budget. If you enjoy a good currently-made creature feature with arachnids, and you don't mind the subtitles, this one is definitely for you.
3 out of 5
THE CROW (1994)
a review by Evan Landon
I suppose, since we are discussing a classic film that should not be remade, repurposed, reimagined (yet is), we should start here. Why the fuck do we keep doing this? I honestly haven't seen any of the actors in this movie speak to it because we, as they do, know it will fail. Put Post Malone tattoos all over Bill Skarsgard's face and it's still the dumbest way to beat up a dead body (no pun intended) that we have been watching for the past few decades. Y’know what was fucking cool? The first movie. But Hollyweird is so bereft and bankrupt for ideas, that we are getting a new one that absolutely nobody asked for. So, you ask...?
Let's talk about the good parts of my pick for one of the movies that defined my generation, shall we?
Before anything else, let's examine one of the Greatest parts of this movie: this movie broke the mold as far as graphic novels go, especially when it comes to translating to the silver screen. Written, painted, and drawn by James O'Barr back in the early nineties to bring peace to his mind after paintings and illustrations of his time in the U.S. Marines. He made certain illustrations to accompany the music for the band through comic books that was soon bought up by Caliber Press, then packaged by the band Trust Obey signed to Trent Reznor's label. After being passed through many hands, the treatment for a screenplay went to splatterpunk writer, David J. Schow, and John Shirley (of Blue Oyster Cult fame), and Miramax Studios.
The premise, as simple as I can make it, is that a crow will be sent to ferry those wayward souls into the afterlife. Sometimes, the crimes against them are so far gone that they have to atone for all of the wrongdoings that besmirched them in order to make it to the other side. Basically, like a revenant. What ensues is not hard to figure out, but I don't think it needs anymore of an explanation than that.
I think when the hats at Miramax had this cross their desks, it was not something they were looking for. You could say, at the time, that Paramount Studios were not too keen on such an unsecured property. There was no guaranteed money. That was part of the Miramax appeal though: small endeavors through major distribution never gets anything accept for awards and large ticket sales. Not too bad of an idea, if you ask me.
If'n we all want to get blurry-eyed, we can discuss the mishap onset that left us with only questions as to how great Bruce Lee's son could have become, but I will not do that. It has been talked about at nauseum for the past quarter of a century and I had a close friend of mine that used to dress just like him and repeat his lines, word-for-word. Even pro-wrestler Sting took up the persona as a gimmick that seemed to work in WCW, until it didn't, just because it was so popular. Shit, he even dawned the Joker vibe when that wore off.
Director Alex Proyas did an amazing job with what he had here. He went on to make a lot of other movies, most notably Dark City, but I should save that review for another time. Of course, the acting is also way better than expected; we get, not only, Brandon Lee (in his final performance), but Ernie Hudson, Michael Wincott, and the dude from The Warriors pulling off some magnetic dissonance.
The soundtrack was definitely some of the greatest songs ever, at the time when soundtracks meant as much as the movie itself, with not only Trent Reznor’s Nine Inch Nails, but also original music such heavy-hitters of the time as The Cure, Helmet, Stone Temple Pilots, and Rage Against The Machine. It truly did revolutionize music.
The truth is that we will never have a movie such as this. The way we go about trying to make something out of something out of something that happened before... it does not matter when shit is this fucking good. Instead of bottom-feeding off of intellectual property that came from an amazing space, why steal from nostalgia, aside from destroying it? Isn't that the real gamble? Trading memories for monetary gain?
I have no answers for that.
The Crow cleaned up $94 million on a $23 million tab worldwide and is considered to be one of the greatest films of a generation. It has gone on to do more than anyone involved in its creation could have ever thought possible. This is the definition of what anybody who creates could possibly comprehend being around to see it come to fruition.
R.I.P. Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
4.5 out of 5
IDENTITY (2003)
a review by Evan Landon
In 2003, my mom and I went to go see this movie in the theater not knowing a thing about it, except that it was a mystery crime thriller.
What was a big deal to me was that the trailer gave you very little information and gave nothing away except for the premise: ten strangers find themselves in a rundown motel in the Nevada desert at night and in the middle of a storm: an ex-cop turned limo driver; his passenger, a Hollywood actress; a cop transporting a convicted murderer; a Vegas sex worker; a newlywed couple; a family consisting of a mother (who was hit by the limo driver and is dying), the father, and son; and the man running the motel. One-by-one, all of the characters are killed off, just like in Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None to which served as an inspiration for this film and has had its own issues with the title. Twice, in fact. If you want, go ahead and look that one up, but don't say I didn't warn you!
What I find wonderful about this movie, is that it all takes place in one location, for the most part, which is always a difficult thing to pull off. The set of the motel itself was created and filmed on Studio 27 for Sony Pictures, the very same that Wizard of Oz was filmed on. Producer Cathy Konrad had first let her husband, James Mangold, read the screenplay by Michael Cooney, who immediately wanted to direct it. As for underscoring, they tapped Angelo Badalamenti, but was replaced by Academy Award-winning composer, Alan Silvestri, giving it a very ominous tone that works on many different levels.
The casting is top notch too: John Cusack is amazing as the limo driver/ex-cop who brings a certain gravitas to the film, also serving as the main protagonist. Ray Liotta (R.I.P) gives the film a volatile element, as the cop transporting Jake Busey's character to another prison. Amanda Peet pulls most of it together, portraying the sex worker, who is quite possibly the most wholesome character. John Hawkes plays the motel manager, who has had a very good career this past decades with a lot of great indie films. John C. McGinley, Clea DuVall, Alfred Molina, and Rebecca DeMornay round out the cast that makes it easy to identify with every character. They are all fantastic.
As far as the writing goes, I think the strength of the characters is a bit weak, in the beginning. However, once the third act unfolds, it makes a lot more sense why they lacked a certain depth. I won't ruin that for you because you should definitely check this gem out.
Raking in $90 million worldwide against a $28 million budget, this flick was definitely a well-deserved success. I could watch this one over and over again and still pick up easter eggs that fly under the radar. This is how you make a taught thriller.
4 out of 5
MARLOWE (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
Who doesn't love a good noir? I know I do.
I also love a good Liam Neeson popcorn flick, but those are few and far between these days. I could not even tell you what any of his vehicles were about this past decade. He really has found his niche though, you have to admit that much!
This movie is not one of his usual movies as of recent, however, which made me want to see it. They do not make many noirs these days and Neeson is definitely a great fit for the role of private investigator in Prohibition Los Angeles, but that also serves as one of its drawbacks. When an actor is so fitting for a part, it can almost seem like they are sleepwalking through the picture.
The film's titular protagonist is actually one from whenst crime noir films were extremely popular; where one would light everyone else's cigarettes, nor matter which the danger. The character of “Marlowe” actually comes from a pulp comic from the prohibition era by an author named Raymond Chandler, who in turn co-wrote the great classic noir screenplay Double Indemnity in 1944 with Billy Wilder based on a novel by James M. Cain. This story was partitioned from the 2014 called “The Black-Eyed Blond” by John Banville, essentially keeping the character alive after the passing of its creator.
In fact, this could be considered a “standalone sequel” from the 1969 version starring James Garner and Bruce Lee; the only thing that keeps it on its own merit is that it is not a continuation of that story, titled “The Little Sister”, but is a different case altogether that did not even exist yet.
With this case, Phillip Marlowe is now a retired Los Angeles detective turned private investigator who is commissioned by a sultry, young lady to find her lover who was a prop master for one of the major motion picture studios just starting off. Well, this dude got his head ran over outside of a Bourgeoisie Hollywood country club and now this lady is saying it was not him because she saw him driving around a week or so later. What unfolds is a series of twists and turns that will turn not only the impact of the case and those involved, but the innocent lives surrounding them.
To be fair, I always hated these kind of stories that unapologetically point out that the entire story revolves around people writing a story. Stephen King (for as much as I love him) is one of the most guilty of this. I always enjoy a thematic, articulate story, but what takes me out of it is when the writer puts themselves so far into it that it takes away from the story itself. It would be like me writing about a guy who loads tractor trailers for a living, then blogs on the side on Twitter as your main character. Oh, “you're a writer?” No fucking shit. Not everyone is, so apparently, you are trying to write for writers.
Marlowe, in itself, is a wonderful noir. It beats the belts off of sub-par ones that take no notice of the afflictions, not tones, of their predecessors. I honestly like this movie a lot more than the other Neeson films that have run rampant the past decade.
This one almost offers an homage to the “Greats” that came beforehand, yet its subtlety almost rings of rewrites by studio executives that hoped for a Redbox release. Too many fingers in the pie, as Marlowe would say himself.
3 out of 5
THE WHALE (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
When we discuss films, it is usually easier discussing ones that a lot of people have seen or are continuously mocked, so a lot of reviewers go for those kind of flicks as clickbait. They are “flickbait” and I am coining that term right now!
I immediately wanted to see this movie because it had three points that set it off for me: 1) It is an A24 movie, and yeah, I am an admittedly huge fan of their movies, 2) It is a Darren Aronofsky film, who is very polarizing as a filmmaker. I think I like as many of his films as I dislike, so there is my connection/disconnect, and 3) It is a grand return to his old leading man days for Brendan Fraser that I do not think anybody was expecting. He ended up winning a bunch awards for it too, which means fuck all to me, but you could see it meant a lot to him.
Written by Samuel D. Hunter as a stage play in 2012, Aronofsky had tried to get the movie made for a decade until he found the perfect actor to play “Charlie”. Since the original play was set in 2009, Aronofsky wanted it to seem like a seismic shift in our culture, so it takes place before the pandemic around 2016. I am not sure if that setting would have changed the aspect he would of wanted, but the end product is nothing short of seismic. Maybe he thought it would take away from the concentration of the story itself, but that I do not know.
In case you have no idea what the story is about, a morbidly obese teacher in Idaho's life is rapidly coming to a close, so he tries his bestest to redeem his past actions with the daughter he abandoned 8-years-before. She is not quite accepting of his apologies, to say the least. His nurse is the only person he sees frequently, aside from a missionary who gives a great subplot that involves his theological beliefs. His ex-wife comes by to see him after she realizes the only reason he was able to get his daughter over there was because he promised to give her the inheritance he had built up. The reason he was not in their lives anymore is he left them for another man who passed away from suicide via the local religious sect's judgment of his sexual preference, which in turn was the cause of Charlie's overeating.
There is a strong theme of depression, abandonment, spiritualism, and redemption that truly makes this story enthralling enough to watch, even if the movie itself can be difficult to watch. When he eats to find whatevs he considers comfort, it truly did remind me of all those Mukbang videos that completely took over social media during the pandemic crisis, but this was written way before that craze was even a thought.
This one left me spellbound, as it did many others with all of the awards and what not, making $57.6 million against a $3 million budget. It probably would have made a lot more, but it was released during a time where nobody was really going to the theater. What is good is that you can now catch it along with others over streaming platforms.
It did drive me crazy how much his dialogue is apologies, but it is offset by the other character's dialogue and performances. That is my only gripe, but it does add to his character because there are so many insufferable people just like that.
4.5 out of 5
Pet Sematary: Bloodlines (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
Holy shit, I just realized Stephen King has no idea how to spell “cemetery.”
Y'know, when I was making my list of “Top 10 Worstest Films of 2023”, I did not get a chance to put this one in because I had not seen it yet. I had a sneaking suspicion that this one would not cut the mustard, though, but it is only fair to assess the movies I have seen. Well, surely enough, I finally watched this turd and I can easily say it would definitely had made that list.
First off, I know that some sequel bait can be fun to watch in the “oh how bad can it be?” way, but this is not that movie. Remaking old IP's is also getting tired, but that is just how Hollywood is too lazy to come up with something original. Even when it is original, they pad it with so many writers that it does not make a lick of sense. So what do they do? The newest form to save their pocket books: AI and I can almost assure you that this is a prime example. Hell, the name of the writer/director is Lyndsey Anderson Beer and I am almost positive her name is Lyndsey Anderson drinking a beer while AI does the rest. It is her first outing though, so thankfully it cannot get any lower.
There is not really anything else to say about this movie except it is a prequel to the remake of the original that was based off of a novel by Stephen King that even he disowned. The characters are so meh that you are never excited for the kills, nor rooting for any of the characters that are so forgettable that I honestly cannot tell you any of their names, even tough most of the dialogue is them saying another person's name. David Duchovny, Henry Thomas, Pam Grier, and Samantha Mathis are all in this movie too, but I could not tell you why they are there or what they are doing, much less what happens to their characters.
This actually could have been saved with some gore or interesting kills, but there is none worth even discussing because the ones you want to see have cutaways to the next scene that is so jarring, you think you missed something. *Spoiler Alert: at any time you think you missed something, you did not.
However, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that movies of this caliber go straight to streaming these days. The bad news is that this one is getting a follow-up prequel.
0.5 out of 5
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2014)
a review by Evan Landon
When I was a kid, way before I got into science fiction or horror, I was really big into Tom Clancy and Richard Marcinko books. Of course, all of the kids these days have first-person shooters like Call of Duty or Overwatch, so they don't really get into books when they can virtually live it out over a gaming console. While there are some benefits to that, it kind of dullens their minds. That being said, just because they might be interested in the subject, the majority of them would never think to even pick up a book about it. However, they would watch a movie like this.
“13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi” is a 2014 historical book based on the September 11th, 2012 attack on an American consulate in Libya. It was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Zuckoff (I hope I said that right), along with the security team members involved in the attack. He also wrote a historical book about Shangri-La that looks pretty decent, but let's not get too far off topic here.
Directed by Michael Bay, this definitely carries the same kind of feel that Bad Boys or The Rock has, but this one almost gives a hallmark to such films as Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down, which has the same sort of gravitas that it even speaks of it twice. John Krasinski continues to be a formidable force as a leading actor in this one, much more in movies like A Quiet Place and less like the American version of The Office where he played a sappy, sad sack in love. That is some good range, actually.
To be fair, the reactions to this movie when it came out was more for the overall theme of the novel itself and the glorification of covert black ops in the middle east. It is easily thrown into the same soup as Lone Survivor or No Easy Day being a factual book conveyed by the soldiers themselves trough the use of a journalist. In movies like this, you barely get a chance to get to know the characters, but that really is par for the course in these types.
As a person who loves horror movies, these are the ones that really dig deeply into the soul, as you are seeing the horrors of man directly in front of you. It is very, very different when you realize what the true menace of warfare and fear is in the certain face of doom that no thing can prepare you for.
I could not take my eyes of it once it started. That is saying something.
4 out of 5