I live in a state of cinema-watching / media-watching where I am removed a fair deal from the millennium's very low-set standard of impact.
Where I can walk away after one film, episode of a series and return to a natural state where I know filmmakers once had something far closer to a tangible standard built vastly differently, I think other people are trapped and stay where I only visit. And I keep that distance well in check. I think…
Horror of 2016 / Horror of the 2010's
I don't know what you want to hear. But, I could tell you the truth or I could lie. Which would you prefer?
The truth is that nearly everyone at a certain point (2000's, anyone?) (Irreversible, Teeth, Saw, etc) began blurring the lines with horror. To cover the wrongs of bad horror films with a social message. Does that mean they don't "have" a social message? No. The problem is the social…
This review was written in 2011, I believe:
How many times is a rip-off able to surpass the thing it owes its' existence to? Only two films come to mind (Piranha is the other). Friday the 13th had great pieces but really didn't come together to be the best it could be (though it's still a personal favorite and always will be). Sleepaway Camp aims lower but nonetheless passes with Sleaze Honors. In the arena of so-bad-it's-good horror movies -…
#63 in my 99 90's Movies month.
Excitement and danger come first, characters come second. Which is totally okay in Spielbergia. Though those kids are incredibly annoying at times. ("Vegiesaurus! Meatasaurus!" ...Really, movie?) And some of the drama is pretty seriously forced down your throat (Laura Dern before eating the ice cream, Attenborough's super-scream on the telephone, Jeff Goldblum... in general, that kid and the tree climbing, and the fence jumping). But it is exciting and it never did skimp on the danger, did it? Holds up surprisingly well. I probably never enjoyed it this much.
