Reviews

Depressed, artsy girl of few words bristles at the avalanche of oppression around her. God, can't the world just sympathize with her plight?!

This is a sub-genre of film that needs to go away. Either that or people need to remember to write an actual story.

I feel there was a lot of wasted potential with this one. The film starts out well enough, playing on the retro 80s nostalgia dominating the day. As a videogame lover born in '86 it resonated with me quickly. The film even does a decent job of recreating the 80s look and aesthetic...for about ten minutes at least. Enter Gregg Zaun and June Diane Raphael, tasked with recreating the iconic roles of Darren McGavin and Melinda Dillon. The costume department must have run out of money because it looks like Zaun just walked off the set of White Lotus.

Shortly thereafter begins Neil Patrick Harris' narration, which gets about as close to plagiarizing Jean Sheppard as I imagine writers can without being sued.

The rest of the chips fall into place quickly. The terrifying bully, the stiff teacher, the mall Santa visit etc. Our forbidden Red Ryder BB gun gift has been replaced by an original Nintendo console. The pink bunny costume, switched to ugly boots. It's all somewhat cute, unrelentingly thieving and probably worth a watch with your family if you're trying to get into the Christmas spirit, or if the kids are bored.

You'd be better off showing those kids the original A Christmas Story film instead. A classic, original Christmas movie with heart.

Or maybe I'm just nostalgic.

The topic of elderly people being mistreated in Western society is a perfectly noble one to cover in film. That doesn't exempt filmmakers from providing a story though, or character development of any kind. There's essentially zero of either in The Amusement Park, a "lost film" from the late George Romero that I'd wager is getting praised by critics because of context more than anything.

There isn't much of a film here. Our main character orates to the camera for a few minutes at the beginning, explaining just how poorly seniors are treated. Then for the next 45 odd minutes, seniors are treated poorly at an amusement park. The film plays like a not-particularly-good colourized episode of the Twilight Zone, or perhaps more accurately The Ray Bradbury Theatre.

Was excited for this based on the hype, but sadly it proved little more than a mildly curious historical novelty. Heck of a poster though.

John Lurie is a fascinating guy and a considerable talent. The first episode of the his new show sees him bumming around his seaside home in borderline pyjamas; painting, musing, joking, observing. It's not exactly a courtroom thriller but what did you expect? I appreciate some new television that isn't edited at a frenetic pace.

Moving forward, maybe we'll see some interesting guests, but even if it remains just John, the man is quirky enough to capture my attention for twenty minutes.

Check it out.

Yeah, a lot of the user reviews already written for this film are pretty spot on. It's a throwback of sorts to conventional studio comedies of the 50s and 60s. Perhaps my expectations were really low going in after seeing some lukewarm critic reviews.

Anyhoo, if you're bothered by self-pitying upper class urbanites, you might not enjoy this wafer-thin film. Lost in Translation is one of my favourite movies of all time. That film had real depth. You get the sense Coppola wasn't set in her ways when she wrote it. Alas, On the Rocks comes off like the bored meanderings of a writer who's lost her drive to say something. Occasionally Murray's character is sent off on a pseudo-philosophical commentary about gender dynamics, but it all feels terribly dated and out of touch. Meanwhile, Marlon Wayans does an admirable job in a dramatic role, but there's zero screen chemistry between him and Rashida Jones, who mopes her way through the proceedings.

All this to say that it's still a treat watching Bill Murray do his thing. He's got some funny moments, as usual. He's also looking real old. Enjoy what could be one of his last remaining lead roles.

Never Rarely Sometimes Always is the latest mumblecore indie-drama in which all the men are creepy/evil and close-up shots of our sad protagonist rule the day. Did I mention she's sad? She's very sad.

Brutally honest dramas that deal with real life difficulties are great, but they've become so en vogue with critics on the festival circuit over the last ten years that they're about as fresh as the latest Marvel flick at this point. Ladybird, anyone? You could dedicate an hour and a half to this film, or you could simply binge watch the original Degrassi, which features a similar level of character development, comes in bite-size versions, and was released during a time when these topics were actually dangerous to cover. If you're all about that sweet, muted colour palette though, go nuts!

Btw, why are all the older women in this film meek pushovers? And what kind of registered medical clinic would show an anti-abortion film? I had to double check this wasn't actually set forty years ago.

Great cast wasted in a film with the intellectual capacity and insight of a Monday Night Raw episode.

I imagine Out Of The Furnace will appeal to testosterone-fueled men everywhere. It's violent. It's full of yelling. There's hardly a female character to be found. The film makes a surface level attempt to illuminate the plight of America's working class, but despite the actors trying their best to make something out of these one dimensional characters, it all feels like padding until the next "badass" scene.

Save your time and just watch The Deer Hunter again, or The Last Picture Show, or A Simple Plan, or Affliction. These are a few of many other films that actually have something interesting to say about the often complicated and fraught relationships of families and males in rural, working class America.

Count me amongst those who were ecstatic at the prospect of a four and a half hour documentary on my favourite decade of horror, the 1980s. I felt disappointment set in pretty early however, as the obvious budget limitations had the film feeling like a slightly better produced YouTube video. That feeling may have also stemmed from a number of the talking heads being actual YouTube video bloggers. These people can be entertaining at times, but are ultimately little more than fans themselves. I would have preferred their time given to other folks actually involved in the making of these films. Then again, if Joe Bob Briggs was simply allowed to talk for four and half hours we would have gleaned much more than we did from the ensemble.

The best moments of In Search of Darkness were the sections in which the cultural and historical relevance of 80s horror was analyzed. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the doc is comprised of simple and brief commentary on classics of the decade. The decision to structure the discussion year-by-year (marked by title cards) made the project feel laborious at times.

I'm glad I watched the film, in the sense that it felt like talking about horror movies for an afternoon with fellow fanatics. Don't expect a deeply thorough examination though.

I was very much looking forward to this Creepshow reboot. Like a lot of 80s and 90s kids, I grew up on creepshow 1 and 2 and still have a huge soft spot for those two films. They were funny, creepy, campy, clever, gory.. everything you'd want in a horror anthology.

Unfortunately, despite being exclusive to the otherwise excellent horror streaming service Shudder, the first season of this reboot just didn't live up to any sort of expectations I had. The tone of the EC comics, which the original films were based on, felt mostly ignored, while the stories themselves mostly lacked imagination. What I presume to have been an extremely low budget also revealed itself via low production values and a lot of poor acting.

I'm hoping the series can find its footing in the second season. Outside of a couple early episodes, you're much better off revisiting the excellent Tales From The Crypt live action series from the 90s.

I went into this film knowing very little about it, other than a passing familiarity with its writer/director Peter Strickland (Berberian Sound Studio). Wow, was I in for a treat.

As other fans of the film have mentioned, this kind of thing isn't for everyone. You'll need to pay close attention to the dialogue for maximum enjoyment, as it's quite dense and features a lot of wordplay. I'd recommend watching with headphones or subtitles to catch it all.

Strickland is obviously inspired by Argento and Giallo horror, as revealed by his emphasis on experimental sound mixing and synth-laden musical choices. Rather than pale imitation however, his execution feels like a natural update for modern times.

I felt the film managed to find the right balance between comedy and horror, as it was both deeply funny, and also very creepy. That's a pretty rare feat to accomplish. Everything is enhanced via Strickland's obvious directing chops and eye for detail. Every shot, edit and musical cue felt tightly composed and considered. It's a beautiful sight to behold.

Oh and yeah, it's about a killer dress.

Enjoy!

I was very much taken aback upon watching writer/director Joel Potrykus' previous film Buzzard. It's been a few years, but I remember appreciating it both as a great character study, as well as a love-letter to 80s and 90s pop culture (it was also very funny). I grew up in the 90s myself, and find my own nostalgia for that pre-smart phone, pre-internet period to be immense. When I read the premise of Potrykus' latest film Relaxer, I was naturally excited to see it.

Relaxer concerns woebegone slacker Abbie's inability to get off the couch. The film begins with his older brother Cam bullying him into completing a challenge involving drinking a certain amount of nebulous-looking milk, the successful completion of which Abbie places above, say, bathing or using a toilet. Cam disputes the successful completion of the dairy challenge and presents Abbie with a new one: conquering level 256 of Pac Man for a large monetary reward. Seemingly unable to stand up to his older brother or take care of his basic human needs, Abbie complies. The remainder of the film takes place exclusively in Abbie's disgusting apartment, where he is visited by some annoying friends who provide little relief to the situation. As the films continues, the absurdity level delightfully ramps up.

Even moreso than Buzzard, Relaxer harkens back to some dialogue heavy slacker films of yesteryear. I was reminded mostly of early Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater, partly for the geek culture reverie. There's also shades of Jim Jarmusch and Harmony Korine here.

Joshua Burge once again takes on the lead role, as he did in Buzzard. His droopy eyes and unusual appearance lend themselves well to these types of outsider roles, but that's not to take anything away from his acting chops. His understated performance nearly transcends the boredom of watching his one-note, arc-less character interact with other similar characters for an hour and a half. Alas, for a film that lives and dies on its dialogue, Relaxer isn't quite funny enough to negate the malaise. The film picked up some steam in its final act, but it felt too-little, too-late by then.

Unlike Buzzard, Abbie doesn't appear to be at odds with any internal struggle, other than completing whichever trivial challenge he's currently facing. Perhaps that Relaxer's point, and while authentic, doesn't make for a very entertaining film.

Qualms aside, I continue to appreciate Potrykus' unique vision, and eagerly await his next film.

This film creates so much discord. I don't get it. Or maybe I do, and I just don't want to accept that most people are unable to suspend disbelief.

I saw this film twice at the cinema back in high school and had to cover my eyes. My friend laughed at me. I had lousy friends back then.

Forget the ridiculous haters on these boards. If you're a fan of audacious, spirited filmmaking you might just appreciate this film for what it is: a legacy horror film and minor phenomenon.

The film has an economy of style that some of the best filmmakers working with about 3000 times the budget would blush at. It's confident, muscular and daring. It's scary because it challenges you to fill in the blanks.

Everyone I've met so far who bashes this film are terrible at Mad Libs.

Blair Witch forever.

Stumbled upon this film and figured it would be a lame re-hash of the previous "Imagine" documentary. To my pleasant surprise, it felt like there was footage I hadn't seen before. I enjoyed pretty much the entirety of it.

This is a portrait of Lennon in transition, newly free from the shackled of then-fraught Beatles. He seems a lot more relaxed and chilled out then just a couple years prior, and it's nice to see.

I appreciated the documentary spending some time crediting Yoko's positive influence (for once) on songs like Imagine and others. Whatever your opinions of the woman is, it can't be denied that we got a huge amount of amazing music from her time as Lennon's muse.

There's a number of talking heads without much interesting things to say. Basically just heaping praise, which dragged the film down a bit I felt. More interesting were the stories from the engineers and other musicians in terms of Lennon's recording process.

All in all, a nice appetizer for the upcoming Peter Jackson helmed Beatles doc of their time recording Let It Be.

Worth a watch.

Not sure what to make of this film. It's branded as a comedy, but it's not funny. As a drama, it lacks a compelling plot and character development. The lead performance by Regina Hall - as others have mentioned - is fantastic. I wish she was in a better film.

Reminiscent of The Florida Project, Waiting and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, but not nearly as self-assured or accomplished as any of those films.

Wow. That would be my first reaction when tasked with writing a review of this show.

Absolutely razor sharp satire of small town Ontario. I imagine the humour would cater to most folks from rural areas. Beyond that, the pure wordplay in the dialogue is up there with Monty Python.

Hope this show will eventually find a bigger audience and get the credit it truly deserves. Destined to be a cult classic for a long, long time.

While I appreciate the ways in which the filmmakers of Threads tried to implement extreme realism in their depiction of nuclear warfare, I fail to see what the audience is supposed to glean from this film, other than being tortured for two hours.

There's very little plot to speak of and no character development, making Threads play more like an R-rated after-school cautionary. Nuclear war is bad! Let's not nuke each other!

Do we need gruesome depictions of dead babies to hammer this point home? Can't our imaginations suffice?