Reviews

Sea Fever was a truly good film that is also quite timely. It is the battle playing out in large scale brought down to just a handful of people. It is science against human willfulness. And the danger is obvious, but so without fan-flare that it catches everyone by surprise when the strangeness finally starts (and it goes from minorly weird to "Oh fiddlesticks!" with delightful speed.

I enjoyed the aesthetics of the film as well. Everything is soft and dark, and the first manifestations of the creature are delightfully wet and slimy. The crew's accents are a delight to listen to. It wasn't until I was watching a second time that I noticed that the lead character (played by Hermione Corfield) had her hair in a fishtail braid. I thought it was a cute touch for a on-the-water movie.

There is not much gore in film, so it seems especially shocking when it happens. I actually sat back in my chair and said a word I can't repeat in polite company. (Well, that I shouldn't repeat, at least.)

The creature that gets discovered is simple and stunning. The first full shot of it is gorgeous. You would never expect the beauty from the first experience with it.

The only thing I didn't really care for about Sea Fever was that the male characters were largely hard to tell apart. It wasn't until people started dying that I was able to identify them. They blended together too well, with very little personality to set them apart.

Overall, Sea Fever is beautifully shot, wonderfully paced, and has a plot I quite appreciated. The fight of the one scientist as she tries to save as many lives as possible was completely believable and I was rooting for her from the get-go. She is not your typical scientist as is frequently displayed on the big screen, and the film is a pointed observation of the fight that we see playing out - especially in America - right now, but it doesn't feel preachy like that. It's just a good story.

Favorite exchange:

"Your bloody 36 hours." "It's not mine. It's your family's. It's your husband's. It's your baby's."

Disclaimer: I received a screener from a publicist for review consideration.

Itay Tiran, who played the bridegroom, did a fabulous job. His transition from happy-go-lucky to (not so much) was better than any acting I've seen in American horror lately. He had me on the edge of my seat at times, and sitting back to admire the job he did at others. Covered in sweat and crushing a glass in his hand, or curled against a wall bleeding vulnerability, he sold it all. I can't say I'll deliberately go out of my way to look up films from this area again ('cause I'm lazy), but if I see his name in anything, I will check it out.

The supporting actors all did a fantastic job as well, with Wlodzimierz Press giving my second favorite performance. He doesn't have a huge role, but it is a pivotal one. Every time the camera came to rest on his face you knew what he was thinking and feeling. It was in his eyes, the tilt of his lips, and his body language. I wanted to hug him.

Acting, location, direction were almost spot on across the board in Demon. Not perfect, but great nonetheless. It was definitely a film that demanded your full attention. I just wish I knew what in the world had actually happened! Seriously. If you like Inception type endings, you need to see this film. It's been a ridiculously long time since we were able to walk out of a movie completely baffled (in a good way) about how something wrapped up. There were a lot half-started sentences, hand-gestures, and whuffed breaths involved in the hashing out of that ending on the ride home. All that, and no resolution either.

I will say that Demon is not your typical possession film. If you're expecting pea soup and head rotation, you'll need to look elsewhere. There are no dramatic scenes involving levitation, dramatic invocations of god's name, etc. It's an atypical take on the subject that is completely refreshing.

I have a theory, of course, but I can't say because I don't want to spoil it for anyone! Now, if only I could figure out if I actually liked the movie or not

REALIVE was thought-provoking, deeply moving, and delicately handles sensitive subjects with a deftness one doesn't typically expect from a Syfy film. I was hooked basically from the very beginning. The conversation between the doctor and Marc/Lazarus was so very well done. It was grave and serious without being overly dramatic. I like how the guy asks "Why?" and the doctor is just kind of flatly states "It's cancer." Not to be morbid, but that was probably one of my favorite scenes in the movie. The expression on the doctor's face says so much even as he just says "It's cancer." Actually, the whole way they portray Marc dealing with this diagnosis in the beginning all feels very real and true as well. Enough so that it put a hitch in my throat watching it.

The cinematography in REALIVE was nice. The movie is filmed in two time lines. Before re-animation and after re-animation. The 'before' is done in soft, warm colors with movement and laughter and light. The 'after' in cold blues and sharp lines. The facility in the future is conveyed as state of the art and, er, 'futuristic' without being over the top. Its crisp, stark, and rather effective even without a bunch of wires and monitoring equipment everywhere.

To be honest, I had no real desire to watch REALIVE. From the stills and the trailer, I thought 'eh, not my type of movie' and didn't give it a second thought. But then I was offered a chance to do an interview with one of the actors, so I decided to give it a go. REALIVE really isn't my type of movie. I prefer blood, guts, and shoot-em-ups. Spaceships, aliens, and planetary exploration. I don't do feels or thought-provoking flicks as a general rule of thumb. I appreciate that they're around for the people who like 'em, but they just don't get my motor running. This is, I thought as I was starting it up, the type of movie where I'm going to end up picking a book up halfway through it. Sweet baby Cthulhu, I was wrong.

One of my favorite things about the movie was how it handled the subject of cryogenics and reanimation. This isn't one of those movies where it's like "Yes, you are alive again and everything is perfect" It was one that actually looked seriously at how reanimation would actually work. While I don't want to give anything away, let's just say that this is the most believable approach to reviving someone from cryostasis that I've ever read or seen. From the actual reanimation itself to the body's adjustments afterwards.

The love story is also well-handled in REALIVE. It isn't typical, and it isn't super-mushy. It's got an element of star-crossed lovers to it, but not quite that bad. It was there, but it wasn't what the story was all about (to me, at least.)

The ending of the movie was deftly handled as well. It was one of those deals where you were pretty sure you knew how things were going to end up once you were past the halfway point, but you still couldn't look away.

Overall, REALIVE was a fantastically done movie. It put tears in my eyes. That's a fairly difficult thing to do. From the script to the editing, there's very little I would have changed. (Literally, there's like one scene involving two of the doctors that was a bit much. That's it.) I'm happy that I decided to watch it, and definitely highly recommend it to all my fellow sci-fi lovers out there.

Disclaimer: I received a screener of this movie free for review consideration.

IT is one of the best horror movies I've seen this year. The only other one that stands up with it is Get Out. It was extremely well- done, from the directing to the acting. It was a perfect mix of moments that make you laugh, and scenes that make you cringe. They did a great job on not relying on jump scares for every little thing like almost every other horror film released recently. It is dark and sad and hopeful and fierce all at once.

Really, there were only a few things in IT that I didn't care for. Some of them can just be attributed to the fact that in comparison to the original IT, they come up lacking. Mostly, the actors. The main one being Pennywise himself. Bill Skarsgård had his own version of Pennywise, and I thoroughly approve of that. He did not try to imitate Tim Curry's version. His Pennywise was much darker, and rang true as an insane evil. However, I honestly believe Curry's version was scarier. (My partner commented that if they would have had a guy dress up in the suit and let Tim Curry be a voice-over, it would have been perfect.) Curry's Pennywise was all the scarier because he could appear so weirdly evil and funny one moment, and be deadlighting you the next. Also, the Richie character seriously lacked Seth Green's charisma. I know Richie is supposed to be an obnoxious snot, but Seth Green made Richie a funny obnoxious snot, and therein lies the difference!

On the other hand, I absolutely loved Sophia Lillis as Beverly. She did an amazing job. Lillis practically glows on the screen, and is completely believable. I couldn't take my eyes away from her when she was on screen. I cheered (mentally, because movie theater!) for her on more than one occasion. I also applaud the choice to not overly sexualize her. Even the scenes where the boys were ogling her were very tame. This was a fantastic move in an age where people feel the need to push the envelope with sexuality in young girls. Whereas in the original IT movie, Bill was my favorite, Beverly definitely shines brightest this time around.

Speaking of Bill, Jaeden Libeberher does a great job. His performance is on par with Jonathan Landis' in the original. The acting is spot on, and when Bill is openly hurting, I hurt with him. Likewise, Jeremy Ray Taylor did a great job as Ben. He was as believable as Sophia Lillis was. You just knew that Ben was a sweet kid with a good heart. This version of Eddie was better, as well. Mouthy little hypochondriac.

One of the only other things I didn't like about IT was the way they shot Pennywise. The rapid-jerky-fast forward movements are overdone. Every flipping horror movie with a ghost/demon/evil does them lately. It wasn't a deal-breaker, obviously, but the movie would have been great without it.

Overall, I really liked IT. It was considerably darker than the TV version, with far less camp, and left me curled up in my chair. At one point I had to consciously take my fingers away from my face because I was afraid I'd walk out of the theater with big fingerprints on my cheeks! I went into the movie trying to be open minded, but still fairly biased towards the original version. By the time I came out of the theater, I realized that this IT was just as good as the original, but not in the same way. I think fans will be able to appreciate both versions for what they bring to the table.

Annabelle: Creation was significantly better than it's predecessor. Yet, it still somehow managed to be completely unoriginal and almost completely reliant on jump scares. That doesn't really seem like it should be possible, but…

Lulu Wilson, who stole the show in Ouija: Origin of Evil, is likely a big part of what makes Annabelle: Creation a decent film. Her role in this movie is a bit different than in Ouija (which I'm glad of). She's a charismatic little girl, and can communicate quite a bit with just the widening of her big blue eyes. She's almost completely believable in her role. I hope she avoids being typecast as she grows up, because I'm looking forward to seeing her refine her skills. I have a feeling she's an actress worth paying attention to. Talitha Bateman's performance wasn't as captivating as Wilson's, but she still did a decent job.

It was directed by David F. Sandberg, who gave us Lights Out in 2016. I didn't recognize his name going in or I would have had higher expectations. Lights Out wasn't exactly groundbreaking film- making, but it did give us a very powerful ending and an intense atmosphere. Both of which are absent in Annabelle: Creation. The director of photography was Maxime Alexandre, whose work we've seen in Silent Hill: Revelation, The Crazies, and the Hills Have Eyes. And if you've seen any of those films and can't remember anything special about the cinematography in them, you won't be surprised by the lack of any memorable work in Annabelle: Creation.

One of the things I did like about the movie was the reveal of the couple's story. It's sad, but touching, and I definitely empathized with them. It would be very easy to do what they did. I can't blame them at all, even if it was extremely stupid. And I do like the way they tried to fix things. But, once that type of evil has made itself known, I'm pretty sure you can't permanently fix it. I should note, though, that yet again there was nothing original here. I guess that means extra kudos to the actors for still making me feel for them.

Annabelle: Creation ties very neatly to the beginning of the first Annabelle film. Not as well done as Insidious 2 to the first Insidious film, but it works. It also includes a nod to the original Annabelle doll (hint: Looks nothing like the movie Annabelle). Overall, Annabelle: Creation is forgettable, but not horrible.

THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN MILD SPOILERS, but honestly nothing more than I'd already gathered from Twitter and talk /reviews on various other forms of social media. Still, you have been warned. Read no further than the following first paragraph if you don't want to risk mild spoilage.

10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I'm not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn't right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top- notch!

The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman's acting. Winstead, who has one of those "I knowwww you..you're…you were in something I've seen!" faces (she's actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with considerable skill. Great job by Winstead. She didn't shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.

This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn't really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they'd ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present "Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!" push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theaters, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.

Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!