vasiln Reviews

Sleep Tight (2016)

Cheap, but paced well.

[6/10 · 2 January 2024]

I took a chance on this, because no reviews.

Sleep Tight is basically a horror anthology with interstitial. Although episodic, it might as well be a 3 hour-ish anthology with 12 stories, 2 per episode, at about fifteen minutes each. It seems that they'd hoped for more episodes, and the interstitial isn't really resolved (more of a post-credits cliff-hanger.)

Production values are low, but the people that made it seem to care about having done a good job. I'd put it somewhere between, high Youtube and Sci-Fi channel in terms of production quality.

Acting is a mixed bag-- sometimes poorly overacted, sometimes, pro-level. Same goes for writing. Settings are strong. Effects are nothing to write home about, but there's never a sense that something is off-screen because it was too expensive/hard to implement-- they're integrated well with the stories. Suspense/horror is often created by camera effects and action, which are overdone, part of what it makes it feel Youtube-ish. Sound's just okay, serves the purpose, and doesn't get in the way.

Stories themselves have a strong teen orientation. There are a lot of stories about smart phones here. (Remarkably, cell phones almost never lose signal.) Most stories skip over huge swathes of the story. Often, the ending. For good or ill. I'd rather see no ending than a poor ending, and I approve of the decision to leave a lot unspoken. But I know that it irritates a lot of other people.

The pacing is very strong thoughout, helped by the fact that the stories average less than fifteen minutes each. There are plenty of small twists along the way. It's not boring or spread-out.

The best episode of this, hands-down, is the final half of the final episode, where I think the people making this hit their stride. I like that-- I like to see people learning as they go. If you want to skip to it, and then see if you like anything else, that'd be fine.

Overall, I;d say that this is not something you should go out of your way to watch, but if you're bored and out of options, this is going to be more entertaining than a lot of other things you could choose. I'd be inclined to say, it does what it says on the tin, if I wasn't scared that would be misinterpreted in the context of the title.

Dream Scenario (2023)

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Nicholas Cage

[10/10 · 25 December 2023]

So you know Cage is in a lot of movies, right? And most of them are really, really bad. Because Cage seems to take any role that will have him, and he's a *good* actor, and a *modest* actor, and if the director and the script tell him to be Raising Arizona or Wild at Heart, only dialed to 11-- wait, those are already dialed to 11, make it 12-- then he's going to do that. So, we get things like the Wicker Man remake and Con Air.

And you know that *some* of those movies are really, really good. Because Cage is a good, modest actor, and if the director and the script are visionary enough, Cage isn't going to be scared off, and he's going to be capable enough, modest enough, to do what they ask him to do. So, we get films like Adaptation and Leaving Las Vegas.

Dream Scenario? It's that second kind of Cage movie. Undeniably unique. Visionary. Unforgettable.

It's the kind of movie that flirts with meditating on a lot of different themes. Narcissism, not the pathological kind, just the everyday kind that we all know we're guilty of, unless we're too narcissistic to acknowledge it. Modern celebrity, the kind where you're famous for being famous and not really anything else. Marketing, as low-hanging a fruit as it is.

But DS is sophisticated enough to never turn those meditations into some hollow, ideological allegory, to turn them into a manifesto. Ultimately, it is the story of a guy who has a really bad few months, interesting as those months may be. It is a horror movie without any gore, monsters, or serial killers. And it is an *unbearably light* horror film, featuring only the horror of meaninglessness, of quiet inadequacy.

I know it's not for everyone. I hope, in all those words that I've written, that the wrong audience can identify themselves, can opt out. Because if you're the *right* audience? You cannot miss Dream Scenario. It's not even an option for you. If you don't see it now, you're just going to hear about it, over and over again, until you see it. Save yourself some time and see it now.

Bad CGI Gator (2023)

Unpretentious, unamibtious, enjoyable

[7/10 · 2 December 2023]

I had to watch this because of the title. I do amateur CGI. It's almost all bad. There's little sign of improvement. If I were smarter, I'd pick a new hobby.

So, here's the plot: three sorority sisters (one decent) and three frat bros (one decent) go to a Cabin in the Woods to get drunk. I can get drunk in my bedroom, but hey, kids these days. The cabin's by a lake. It's a horror movie. There's "Gator" in the title. What do you think happens next? The gator rips the limbs off of the unlikable ones. I don't even consider this a spoiler.

Does anything else happen? No. What else would you want to see happen? It's a horror movie about a poorly animated CGI alligator.

First thing first: is the CGI, in actuality, bad? It *is* bad. But it's not as bad as a lot of CGI in days past. The gator isn't animated very well. Its limbs don't seem to touch the ground. Eventually, the filmmakers give up on pretending that the gator should interact with the ground at all. The electrical effects are also bad. But, hey, it's a lot better than the crap I've made. When you ignore the whole animation and electricity things, it looks pretty good. And who cares? It's not about whether the gator's legs touch the ground. It's about the fact that they don't. And also, it's about how people that use internet acronyms in everyday speech are ripped into small pieces.

Really, this is as B-movie as you'd expect, but Gator never pretends to be anything else. And thanks to the wonder of modern tools, the production quality is still great (well, minus the skating gator legs.) Plus, the acting is certainly good enough. Maddie Lane does an especially good job. Probably the weakest point is the writing, where they earn a few chuckles out of this horror-comedy, but never any guffaws. But, that's not a major criticism for a film that aims as low as Gator.

Don't expect Sophie's Choice, and I think you'll enjoy yourself. It's only like sixty minutes long. What do you have to lose?

The Killer (2023)

Slight spin on a well-worn trope, but does it work?

[6/10 · 24 November 2023]

It's a story as old as time. Man meets woman. Man becomes a hitman. Man is hunted by his own fixer. Man becomes the hunter.

Okay, maybe not as old as time, just as old as movies. It seems that Netflix alone presents us a new retelling every six months or so.

Of course, this popular narrative runs into a problem. How do you convince the audience to care about what happens to someone voluntarily engaged in the most despicable profession imaginable? Maybe they only kill child molestors? Maybe it wasn't voluntary? Maybe they look like Brad Pitt or Ryan Gosling?

The Killer's spin here is, don't convince the audience to care. Our Killer is, for the first time I remember, portrayed as amoral and unsentimental as a great white shark. We can understand his thought processes via the near-constant narration of mantras from the "Self-affirmations for Killers" self-help book, but Fincher does nothing to convince us that this man is somehow likable-- he remains, like that shark, as something we don't necessarily have to judge, but as a literally mortal enemy to those values we (generally) hold dear, a creature that we really can't afford to swim alongside. Meanwhile, the film itself echoes the unsentimentality of its protagonist.

But perhaps we're being set up for a transformation? There is a transformation here, but it's like a light switch being thrown, like Daenerys is suddenly bloodthirsty, get used to it. And, maybe worse, it's nearly inconsequential, coming as late in the film as it does, and coming with no cost to the Killer. It's the kind of transformation you'd get if you filmed half the movie and then some producer demanded, "Throw in some transformation! Audiences go crazy for that!"

I don't think it was supposed to be that way. I think that the protagonist's conversation with Tilda Swinton, an actor who can carry a bad film unlike any other, was supposed to feel a lot more impactful than it did. But none of her lines would have been news to our Killer, and she never feels like anything other than one more drop in a sea of blood. Swinton can do a lot, but she isn't up to carrying the Killer, not in her short time on-screen.

So, no, in this case, I don't think Fincher's spin works. But The Killer remains a mildly entertaining movie, with strong production values, and I can appreciate the unsentimental nature of the film even if I can't ever convince myself to care about what happens to the Killer himself.

The Devil's Plan (2023– )

Are the players competing with each other or with the game?

[9/10 · 6 October 2023]

We've become accustomed to how reality games like this work. Deceit, betrayal-- it's all fair. We might tut-tut, but part of the fun of these shows is that opportunity for self-righteousness: how could they do that? I would never! And we believe that, behind the scenes, the producers are doing whatever they can to promote that drama. It makes for engaging viewing. Of course, the producers like to keep mum about it; they'd rather we judge the contestants for any moral failings, not the show for incentivizing them.

Devil's Plan is a little different. It explicitly invites deceit from the beginning. The plan is to turn the contestants themselves into devils. But is it possible that DP is not playing completely above the table here? Is it possible that DP's goal is instead to demonstrate how clever one must be to be a saint?

The heart of DP are two games played daily. The first, ostensibly competitive, pits players against each other in cleverly designed games that include challenges both mental and social. If they win, they gain or lose "pieces" which allow them to remain in the game-- when they lose their last piece, contestants are eliminated. The second game of the day, explicitly cooperative, raises the prize pool.

But there are hidden games as well. Unbidden, contestants discover new puzzles in their environment. What is the prize for solving these challenges? On this, our show's hosts are, so far, silent.

DP is a game about puzzles, and if you like good puzzles, I think you'll like to play along-- DP certainly invites you to, never revealing secret information until the game is already won or lost. The cooperative puzzles are somewhat interesting, but purely mental in nature. But where the game shines is in its "competitive" puzzles. Why the quote marks? Because these puzzles typically contain carefully designed (and carefully shrouded) Prisoner's Dillemmas. If you like to solve puzzles the wrong way, if you've ever heard, "Yeah, okay, but I don't think you're supposed to play the game that way," then you'll love these puzzles, because I'm pretty sure DP's designers really, really want us to solve them the wrong way. (We home viewers can think about the rules at leisure, finding the creative solutions, but unfortunately, DP's contestants are not yet finding all the strategies. Their schedule is strict.)

For people who are not into puzzles-- particularly, not into political puzzles-- there is probably not much here, just another reality show. But for me, there's a lot, and I'm greatly looking forward to the rest of the season.

Outlast (2023– )

Unexpectedly successful meditation on political philosophy

[7/10 · 13 March 2023]

Outlast is conceived as a team survival game. On that front, it's hard to call it a success. Contestants are provided overly gamey challenges that make it feel more like Survivor than Alone. Surprisingly dynamic camera work is a minus here, suggesting more infrastructure than Outlast is willing to admit. I have no doubt that contestants are hungry, tired, and cold, but the show doesn't focus particularly on their survival challenges. In the end, the producers just change the rules outright, perhaps out of money for a game that lasted longer than anticipated; perhaps, just exhausted of a game that spiraled out of control; perhaps even worried about liability from what might happen next if the game doesn't end.

But, because of the actions of some contestants, Outlast becomes a fascinating examination of the development of nascent systems of ethics and justice.

Provided no real rules, one team soon decides to sabotage another, stealing away their sleeping bags. We're provided a variety of responses to this. The victims, understandably, feel angry and violated (although one of them had earlier argued unsuccessfully for similar behavior from her own team; she's not the worst hypocirte here however.) One contestant sees that this can lead only to increasingly ugly behavior, whether driven by selfishness or by the desire for justice-- and isn't it so hard to see the difference when self-interest is on the line? Another contestant seeks justice, striving to ensure that the wrong-doers are punished, even against his own self-interest; and one entire team seems content with the behavior, provided it benefits them and that they don't have to feel any personal responsibility. Personally, I can see myself behaving in any of these ways, even as one of the wrongdoers; it seems that our ideals are very much a function of our culture, even when that culture is only four members strong, and while I respect Javier very much, I cannot agree with his certainty that people are somehow constants, irrespective of context.

Maybe I'm more academically-minded than most, but to me, it's hard not to see this is an experiment in early political systems; it's hard not to see this as an indictment of anarchism and an endorsement of the state, and particularly of the basic idea of a system of justice. Unfortunately, here, the wrongdoers are never really punished, even for their hypocrisy when the shoes is, vaguely, on the other foot. But it's not hard to imagine a game that lasted longer, with more tribes, leading to an intertribal political structure designed to prevent issues like this. And although the tribes here pursue out-of-the-box antisocial tactics, I personally find it disappointing that they never found the out-of-the-box *pro*social tactic: to become a single team, and thus end the game and share winnings equally. If that was somehow against the rules, since it could end the game before it began, Outlast never made that clear.

Outlast is not a survivalist show, and if that's what you're after, you probably shouldn't watch it. Neither is it a detective mystery, where the bad guys are punished and we all go to sleep happy, content that justice was done. Justice was not done in this show; mechanisms of justice took significantly longer to develop than can be shown on Outlast. But if you're interested in politics, if you're interested in psychology, if you're interested in sociology, then Outlast is a unique, if unpleasant, experiment in those fields.

Venus (I) (2022)

Suspiria + The Professional = one fun ride

[8/10 · 5 February 2023]

Gogo dancer Lucia, on the run from the mob after stealing a duffel bag of pills, hides out in the Edificio Venus, a derelict apartment block that is perhaps cursed, perhaps home to a witch. Her preadolescent niece tags along for the ride.

Venus segues seamlessly from supernatural horror to action flick and then back again, a refreshing mix of genres that spares us the doldrums of either. Our protagonists are enjoyable, easily likable, worth cheering on, all the way through to the end.

Acting is high quality, there is no apparent lack of budget-- absolutely nothing to complain about in the way of production values. I watched in Spanish with English subs.

Venus is maybe a little derivative-- it's true, it riffs on Argento's mythos the way that other films riff on Lovecraft, and run-from-the-mob is a well-worn trope-- and it'd be hard to call it high art or anything, but it's a seriously fun flick.

Bring Out the Fear (2021)

Character study of boring people

[4/10 · 30 January 2023]

GF and BF get lost in the woods. They hallucinate things. Their phones don't work, duh. Maybe something supernatural is happening?

Bring out the Fear focuses almost entirely on its two characters, probably for budget reasons, and there's nothing wrong with that; when you have limitations, it's smart to build your film around them. But if the bulk of your film is about two characters and their interactions, at least one of them has to be likable. BotF's characters are not; worse, they're *bland*, not even interestingly unlikable.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to care what happens in BotF. Yes, something creepy is happening, but what's it matter? It's okay with me if these people die, and it's okay if they don't; they seem about as interesting as an overheard phone conversation on public transit. Maybe they're too realistic.

Sound/score are good though. And they do what they can with a clearly very limited budget, at least in terms of filming. It's just that they forgot to give us a reason to care about anybody in the film.

Junji Ito Maniac: Japanese Tales of the Macabre (2023– )

Faithful adaptation of Ito's short works

[8/10 · 20 January 2023]

Maniac is an animated series of short pieces originally published as horror comic books by Junji Ito (of whom I am a long time fan.) Some episodes have one longer story, while others have two shorter ones. They are independent and can be watched in any order.

It is enormously faithful not just to the actual stories, but to the style of those stories, the style of their art, and even to their dream-like pacing. Ito's unique narratives and style become a unique animated horror series.

The main addition to a lot of these stories (not all, and the choice was made wisely in my opinion), other than animation of course, is *color*, and if nothing else, this has been a joy for me simply to see Ito's work in that color-- to see his autumn leaves in deep red, to see the color of Tomie's sailor uniform, and so on. As with all else in the work, the color remains true to Ito's style.

Western horror fans may or may not appreciate Maniac as much as I did; we are a fickle bunch, with diverse tastes. Ito's stories are surreal and creepy, with a slow pace, and often without the narrative resolution many crave. But they are undeniably imaginative and often deeply disturbing.

If you're not sure whether or not you'd enjoy Maniac, I would recommend skipping the first episode, which I consider the weakest. Please stick around at least once for an incredible closing credits sequence.

The 101 Scariest Horror Movie Moments of All Time (2022)

Just a time-filler, but well curated

[6/10 · 10 November 2022]

101 SHMOAT follows the well-worn VH1 formula of a whole lot of clips and a few talking heads. Occasionally, we're treated to people involved in making the films being showcased, and they always have something interesting to say. More often, we get to listen to people without much in the way of qualification, who want to tell us that Last House on the Left is somehow a moving work of art rather than classic exploitation, or that "it was all a dream" is something to love rather than lazy writing. But hey, Joe Bob Briggs is always awesome.

Films showcased are well curated. There don't seem to be any paid promotions here, and we're talking about a time period spanning Nostradamus to, I dunno, Autopsy of Jane Doe. While I wasn't a fan of every film featured, I know that tastes vary greatly *especially* within this genre, and films typically deserved their place on this list.

While we listen to the talking heads, we get to see good clips of good films, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes, I was reminded of the greatness of a film I loved long ago, to which I hadn't devoted enough recent thought. A few times, I was introduced to a film I hadn't even heard of, and took a mental note to give it a watch.

If your well of horror is running dry, you'd probably get more out of this than on taking a chance on some cast-review-bombed Amazon Prime crapola. And, who knows, you might even discover a few gems.

There is one warning which may be very important to some people: the films are *thoroughly* spoiled in discussion. Personally, especially having seen most of these films, I think that's a wise choice; you really can't say much about a film without accepting spoilage, and I don't find that being spoiled makes me enjoy great films any less. But for those who care about spoilers, and haven't seen many of these films, you might want to take a pass on this series.

Hellraiser (2022)

Lamentable configuration

[5/10 · 10 October 2022]

College kids get chased around the woods by Cenobites. Cenobites lay siege to those kids in a mansion. It's like the zombie formula, but with Cenobites.

All of which makes the Cenobites feel pretty ineffectual. Never mind that Cenobites getting locked out of a house isn't really in keeping with, you know, opening all those portals from other dimensions in the walls and floor. Maybe it's a magic house, I don't know.

The Hellraiser reboot has decent art direction. It has a budget. There's nothing wrong with the new Pinhead, she's fine. But in terms of story, they phoned it in this time. We're left with a movie that's perfectly acceptable as some time-waster slasher that you forget the moment the credits roll, but that's all. Lamentable, considering the potential.

Inheritance (I) (2020)

But what if I don't beat my baby to death and they grow up to be Hitler?

[3/10 · 5 October 2022]

Inheritance wants us to support its protagonist Collins. We're told, practically via exposition, that she is smart, ethical, and fierce.

Then we watch her throughout the film behaving stupidly and despicably. With the apparent moral reasoning of a tadpole, her self-righteousness rings hollow, and her fierceness comes off only as petulance and narcissism. Part of that is the fault of casting, part direction, part acting, but overwhelmingly, it is the fault of the writing. Collins can be neither smarter nor more ethical than whoever wrote her lines.

It's not impossible to make a thriller with despicable characters. They're a staple of the genre. But to make it work, the writers have to realize that they're writing bad guys. We can adopt the perspective of clever killers after insurance money. Adopting the perspective of self-deluded idiots is something else entirely.

Here I just end up being worried for the character of the people involved, that they can somehow imagine that we could watch Inheritance and find Collins's behavior relatable. There is a plot here, however thin; unfortunately, that entire plot seems designed only to justify questions like that posed in this review's title.

3 stars for a budget and a plot. Not a particularly interesting plot, mind, but it has something. I recommend skipping Inheritance.

Cracked (I) (2022)

Paint-by-numbers Asian horror

[5/10 · 3 July 2022]

Cracked is a Thai haunted house movie. Here, it's less a haunted house than some haunted paintings, but it's the same thing. There's not any more to be said about the plot than that.

In the beginning, we get some slow (but not unengaging) creep. There are some jump scares, there's some "oh whew that scary scene was just a nightmare," that kind of stuff, just to fill the time.

But the story barely gets developed until the third act, and then it's developed poorly, trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Characterization is likewise blank-slate bland. The most likable thing about the protagonist is that she's a single mother who loves her daughter. No personality beyond that. The child acting is poor, even filtered through subtitles.

Good production values, but Cracked feels too engineered, too sanitized-- it feels like a Chinese horror movie. That's not a compliment.

It's not so bad as to be unwatchable, but it's definitely not memorable.

The Cellar (2022)

Good third act, but what a chore to get there

[5/10 · 14 April 2022]

An "evil house" film that is occasionally Lovecraft-adjacent, Cellar's story has good bones but little meat, and I was more than once reminded of Mitchell & Webb's "Lazy Writers."

Add to that constant attempts at suspense that fall short because there aren't any stakes. The overbearing score, always letting you know to Be Really Scared Now Okay! Doesn't help. The first two thirds of the film felt like padding, like B-roll repurposed into something usable after the budget ran out.

But when we finally get there, it's actually a pretty good ending! And the acting is adequate, and the production values are good. They just should have left half of this on the cutting room floor.

Okay for a movie you watch with friends, fully intending to talk over half of it.

Menendez: The Day of the Lord (2020)

Decent supernatural exorcism flick, with a heavy side of edgy

[6/10 · 16 February 2022]

I was intrigued by the high and low ratings here and gave this a try. After watching, I still find them perplexing. This is an okay movie. It is not a masterpiece. It is not crap.

Menendez is a strongly supernatural Spanish exorcism flick-- there's no bandying about with potentially mundane explanations. Our title character is a tortured former priest, just out of jail for murder of a previous exorcism beneficiary/victim. His method? Beat the ever-living crap out of the possessed until the demon is forced out, then beat the ever-living crap out of the now manifest demon. A jail buddy convinces him to go back for One Last Exorcism....

And, in this, Menendez is perfectly acceptable. It doesn't make you think or go Oh Wow or anything like that. It doesn't care if it makes sense or not. It's just a regular old horror movie. It's on the melodramatic side, even considering the melodrama bias of exorcism flicks in general, which might explain some of the "It's Comedy" reviews (no, it's not comedy.)

Where it is notable is where it's willing to go-- and that might be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the audience. Menendez spends a decent amount of time on straight-out torture porn. As promised, we get to watch our possessed victim get the ever-living crap beat out of them. Then, we get to watch their fingernails pulled out. Then, there's some incest. Which isn't too unfair, this is just Linda Blair's crucifix updated for the current millennium. It's not sexy, but it's still exploitative (not necessarily intended as a pejorative.) This isn't A Serbian Film, but fans out of that kind of stuff will probably get some similar enjoyment out of Menendez. And a lot of other people will probably get really turned off (which at least might explain some of the 1 ratings here.)

The story here is acceptable, nothing special. The torture porn is at the level where it will turn off most viewers, while not being extreme enough for the die-hards. If you don't mind torture porn, this is an okay way to while away a few hours, but that's all.

Lucky (IV) (2020)

Many Worlds intepretation of Schrodinger's Rapist

[5/10 · 27 November 2021]

Writer and protagonist Grant has something to say about violence against women-- something to say about the ways that some women are hobbled by fear of violence. Unfortunately, what Grant has to say is not clear.

Is Lucky a study on the meaningless surreality of some of these fears, that their focus is on some masked stranger in a parking garage rather than on one's husband, the vastly more likely source of violence? Or is Lucky instead arguing that those masked strangers are inappropriately disregarded as a legitimate source of fear? Does Lucky argue that women need to stick together to escape their chains? Or does it instead tell us that women should "Go It Alone" because solidarity is hopeless? When Grant angrily insists that her success is 100% a function of her hard work, are we as the audience supposed to be cheering for her self-regard or shaking our heads at her self-importance? Are we invited to think that all men (save our husbands, of course) are responsible for our fear, or are we instead asked if we're failing to see "Schrodinger's Rapist" as something other than an object-- a man with a face, many men with many faces?

Maybe Grant isn't sure about any of that, and Lucky is just asking a lot of questions. Maybe it's less of a manifesto, more of a meditation. But if so, even that uncertainty is unclear. Lucky merely allows us to be reminded of our own questions-- or of our own certainty regarding the answers-- and if we have none, then Lucky doesn't do anything to change that.

That might be okay sometimes. Like Inglorious Basterds, Lucky seems to be fine with you ignoring the critical questions. In Lucky's case, in favor of just watching a poppy, PG-13 thriller. Unfortunately, Lucky doesn't travel the traditional scales of pop. It is a thought experiment, with little relationship to reality, yet never embraces this, never surprises us with any genuine weirdness. Any transformation here is transient-- abandoned in the third act. And there is no reveal, no catharsis; the unmasking has no impact on the movie as a work of entertainment. There is no denouement. The plot questions are never answered.

But it's not poorly made: the acting is generally decent (although there are occasional awkward missteps); it's not overly long; the production values are good. Lucky may not hit the targets it aimed for, but it's an acceptable way to blow an hour and a half.

Violation (2020)

A brilliant film, but aimed at a vanishly small audience

[9/10 · 26 November 2021]

Violation is unrelentingly bleak. There is no catharsis. There is only disgust and ambiguity. Those are strong criticisms to most; to some, like me, they are incidental to what is otherwise an incredible movie.

Most audience aren't looking for "bleak" in a film. They will almost certainly be disappointed. Violation is horrifying, but not in the way most horror aficionados are accustomed to expect. And fans of drama are looking for character transformation, which is almost nonexistent here, even were they able to tolerate the unsentimental depiction of murder, dismemberment, and disposal. Violation reminds me of Lost River in its embrace of a singularly small audience, although Violation is a far more powerful film.

Even gorehounds will be disappointed. This is a gory movie. But it is not gory because of splatters and flying limbs. The gore is simple. It is the cold presentation, without any pandering, the demonstration of the simple fact that people are made out of meat, that makes Violation powerful. Those are pearls that were his eyes.

Not a lot happens in Violation. The entirety of the dialogue could fit on a few pages. The story, told out of order, includes two awful events and little else, only enough to begin to put those events into context. But the camera and the acting, usually nonverbal, held me rapt throughout. I'm used to falling asleep thirty minutes into a film. Violation kept me awake far past the credit roll.

V/H/S/94 (2021)

Fun effects, forgettable stories

[5/10 · 7 October 2021]

Found footage horror anthology. 4 stories and an interstitial to span the film. Same formula as VHS and VHS 2. Oh, and a fake commercial. 6 different filmmakers.

Effects here (and by effects, I mostly mean gore) are fun and well done, but for the most part, the stories just look like crude justifications for the effects. The filmmakers seem much more interested in makeup than in screenplays.

My favorite story of these was the first, which had the most story. It might not be a coincidence that it also had the worst effects.

I don't have anything against the formula, but earlier VHS films were better.

Day 5 (2016–2017)

Brilliant concept more than makes up for flaws

[7/10 · 21 August 2021]

Tired of zombies? Me too. Day 5 is a unique and inspired post-apocalypse, its characters slowly tweaking out as they go longer and longer without sleep. Production values are so-so, but much, *much* better than you'd generally see on Youtube; I'd say it's somewhere between Sci-Fi Channel and network TV. The concept is more than enough to make up for the occasional deficits. Sometimes I'm not sure whether something is bad acting or great acting, because people tend to act pretty weird when they've gone without sleep for five days. (Other times, like dream sequences, no, it's just bad acting.) Main characters are all good though.

Part drama, part comedy, but mostly The Odyssey. Infrequent gratuitous boobs, swearing that usually feels natural, some on-screen violence but only when called for.

First season *is* better than the second season, which sometimes felt formulaic. 8 stars for first season, only 6 for the second.

Wonder Woman (2017)

Good movie, for a superhero flick

[7/10 · 11 January 2021]

This is a good movie.

I'm not generally a fan of superhero films. They strike me as philosophically superficial Bayesque things.

For most of its running time, WW is about characters, who have well-considered philosophical positions. There's no rubbing your nose in those positions, but they're consistent.

The absolute strength of WW is in its writing. Which isn't to say that any other bits are bad-- the acting is certainly adequate, although it is a a super-hero flick, not Osage August Count, so the bar is not that high. The direction and editing are fine, and where they fail, it's due to trying to be original, rather than trying to be the same as everything else-- even its directorial failures are a plus in my book.

WW doesn't try to be anything particularly amazing. It's just a superhero movie. Eventually, it turns into boring action for its own sake. But "eventually" puts it miles beyond every other superhero movie I've ever seen. Meanwhile, before it gets there, it manages to be smarter than any other superhero flick I've seen.

Qian nü you hun: Ren jian qing (2020)

Can it live up to the original?

[7/10 · 2 January 2021]

The original Chinese Ghost Story is definitely a classic-- one of the fantasy greats. A star-crossed wuxia love story between a bumbling young bureaucrat and a reluctant demon, punctuated with bad-ass demon hunter action.

Unfortunately, the original is also pretty dated at this point. It would be hard to find a new audience able to appreciate it.

No, Enchanting Phantom can't quite live up to the original, at least as it exists in the minds of those enough lucky enough to have enjoyed it in its day. But that doesn't mean EP isn't a good movie. It's not great, but it's good.

It does suffer from the same problems typical to modern Chinese fantasy. There's too much CG. There's too much focus on action at the expense of character. It often feels like Chinese fantasy directors would rather be making video games. But if EP suffers from these issues, it suffers from them much less than other recent Chinese fantasy fare.

Meanwhile, the compelling love story is still there, and the action is enjoyable even if overemphasized. More, the imagery is incredible.

Recommended for new fans of Chinese fantasy (adult or child); recommended for fans of the original. It won't be unforgettable, but it's an enjoyable watch.

Books of Blood (2020)

Fails to coalesce

[5/10 · 13 October 2020]

Supposedly, there are three stories. But it's hard to actually count them because of the strange way that Books of Blood is structured. We start in what looks like an interstitial, jump to an unrelated (and rather long) first story, jump to a second shorter story without spending any time on the apparent interstitial, then go back to the interstitial, make the most half-assed attempt possible to tie in the first story, discover that the interstitial wasn't an interstitial at all but is instead a short second chapter of the second story, and then return to the already over-long first story for its second chapter.

I know. That's confusing. BoB really only has two stories in two parts each, and the structure screws with the pacing. It's better to know going into it. Anthology structures are arbitrary conventions, as is the convention to have a single act or three, never two. But those conventions help the viewer manage their expectations. BoB is experimental in this sense, but it's an experiment that, unfortunately, doesn't work out.

Beyond that? This is typical direct-to-streaming horror fare. A little better than Sci-Fi channel schlock, a little worse than late night Cinemax. Much of the horror is old-trope body horror, eyes sewn shut kind of cliches that were tired even in the days of Alice in Chains. The second story isn't bad, but the first story dominates the running time and is not good.

This is a horror movie, actual horror rather than just PG-13 pretend, and it's watchable, but there's not a lot that can be said in its favor past that. Exhausted all of your other horror options? In that case, BoB is forgettable, but it'll do for a popcorn night.

Goedam (2020– )

By-the-numbers Asian horror anthology

[6/10 · 22 August 2020]

An anthology of eight short (10 minute-ish) supernatural Korean horror flicks, which is right up my alley. Netflix presented this as eight episodes, but it's not laid out like a television series-- really, it's just an anthology horror movie, divided into parts. No connection between stories, no interstitial.

The stories themselves are low on ambience, low on mood building, big instead on, "Here's a ghost, watch it kill somebody." There's plenty of blood and some moderately disturbing violence. Heavy on special effects, which are dodgy at times. In my opinion, the stories improve as they go, with my favorite being the sixth, "Dimension."

Nothing in the way of ambiguity, other than the details elided to fit into the short blocks of running time. For me, that's a minus, but I'm sure there are some for whom it's a plus. Appropriate popcorn fare as long as you don't expect much from it.

The Lodge (2019)

As heavy as it ever gets

[9/10 · 30 April 2020]

Two children and their father's new fiance prepare for Christmas at an isolated lodge to get to know each other. The children blame the fiance for their parents' divorce, and she has a generous helping of baggage herself.

Then the power goes out.

I read the reviews here before watching The Lodge. There are a lot of bad reviews, people for whom it didn't deliver what they were expecting. There are also a lot of good reviews. I took a chance and am so glad that I did.

Let's be clear. This isn't Jeepers Creepers; this isn't The Conjuring. If you want a fun scary movie to see with your friends, don't pick TL. If you think horror just means gore or monsters or ghosts or serial killers, this film probably isn't for you. But TL is as horrifying as cinema ever gets. It is tragedy delivered with rare force. It is not a fun movie. It offers only anxiety, dread, and misery.

That's not most peep's cup of tea. I know that. If it's *your* cup of tea, you should know that TL is flawlessly paced, completely engrossing, well written and acted, beautifully filmed, wholly original.

If you love authentically horrifying cinema the way that I do, I can't see how you could let yourself skip The Lodge.

Verotika (2019)

So bad it's good

[3/10 · 26 February 2020]

Bad effects. Bad editing. Really bad script. Really, really, really bad acting. And, after all that, self-important, with no apparent awareness of its absurdity.

I guess, technically, it's an anthology? But the individual stories are so disjointed that it doesn't seem like it matters-- even calling it an anthology feels like giving its script too much credit.

But there's a little bit of a budget, the camera actually moves, and the bad acting is entertainingly bad, somehow wooden and overenthusiastic at the same time. Plus, to maintain a little interest, some gore, and plenty of scantily clad young women with perfect hair. If you're into that.

I wouldn't recommend seeing Verotika on its strengths. I wouldn't say it has any. But if you're in the mood for a "so-bad-it's-good" horror movie, sometimes hard to find in a sea of "so-bad-it's-just-so-bad", Verotika might be what you're looking for.