jmunky.com

The main character Jane is traumatized by the miscarriage she suffered following a car accident, but Richard is skeptical of her seeking help from psychoanalysts. She decides to see a therapist anyway because her visions really are quite gruesome and disturbing; they feature an unknown man whom she finds to be stalking her in real life as well.

After one so-so therapy appointment Jane makes the SLIGHTLY questionable decision of agreeing to partake in a black magic ritual with her neighbor, who SWEARS this will solve the problem. The performers of this ritual kill a puppy (red flag), force Jane to drink its blood (redder flag), strip her naked (reddest flag), and I think you get the idea.

The eye makeup on all the women in this film really is quite incredible, but let's be real, the rest of the movie is...... skeevy garbage. The what-is-a-dream-what-is-real element is kind of interesting, except I could never tell what the heck was going on. So many expository details are thrown out there and never revisited again; it's a frustratingly uninteresting experience that basically amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

But yeah no fuck this movie firmly up the yin yang.

I have this strange little quirk about me where I am morally against having any sort of fun whatsoever, and as such only have a passing enjoyment for the original Halloween. So my severe hatred for the remake has nothing to do with the typical "It ruins the first one", which I don't believe it does at all. The first one to me will always be a fun popcorn film, but I HATE this movie purely from a filmmaking standpoint. In fact, I don't know if I hate any movie more than I hate the Halloween remake. The half star rating is something I have only dished out seven times prior to this film. Antfarm Dickhole is really just glorified(or un-glorified?) porn and shouldn't even be considered a real movie. Snoop Dogg's Hood of Horrors is just racist stereotypical bullshit. At least Jason takes Manhattan has Jason and the entire third act taking place in what seems like one alleyway. But Halloween is the most cynical, soulless, diseased, oozing herpes sore, that three-time running c*nt hole Director of the year Rob Zombie squeezed into a drink and force fed me with it. It lacks any sense of fun or genuine horror that the original brought, instead cashing in for the most under fucking baked backstory and a nearly scene for scene rehash of the original that only diverts to something new in the final 25 minutes. Did I also mention it's a slasher film that the box says is 2 HOURS?! Well fuck you the box lies, because I could have sworn I was sitting watching this piece of shit non-stop since fucking last Tuesday.

OoOoOohH tHe mIgRAinE iS rEaL

Below is my rant and it's quite long, so if you don't want to read it, just understand Halloween is the anti-film, in the same way, that Revelations speaks of the antichrist.

So the movie starts out essentially like an episode of Full House, except the family is highly dysfunctional. You got Michael, who is always up to some sort of mischief, such as gutting his hamster in the bathroom with a knife, or mastur-the-bating to pictures of dead cats. 5 minutes into the film and the sloot sister has already made a hilarious LOL joke about jacking off a rat. At this point, the movie can only get better.

We also get to meet the dad, who is like every stereotypical alcoholic, drug addicted, abusive shitty old father, multiplied by a thousand. You would be hard-pressed to find a more overacted role in a film, it felt like I was watching SNL. It's o.k. though because he conveniently falls asleep since the screenwriter told him to do so, so that Michael could elaborately duct tape him up. Only waking of course so that he can dramatically look into the eyes of his son as he chokes to death on his own blood.

Also, Michael kills discount YMS by beating him to death with a baseball bat, but it wasn't fun or brutal like in Violent Cop or Nameless Gangster, just shot in the most uninteresting way and groan-inducing all around. Then he kills his sloot sister, and it's unnecessarily incesty, but then he penetrates her and it's all good in the hood.

The movie starts to really drag directly after this when Michael goes to the sanatorium. We get what feels like the same four or so scenes of Malcolm Mcdowell sitting in a cafeteria saying "but you have to open to me Miiiicchhhaaaaeeeellllll". This is intercut with Michael fingering some old lady with a fork? I couldn't really tell what was happening on the CRTV footage so I can only assume, since it seems the R-rated movie is trying to fast forward through the scary bits, and of course, his mom shooting herself. This all, and I left out a bit earlier, takes a whopping 38 minutes and 43 seconds. You could cut all of this boring bullshit out of the movie, and just start it when Michael breaks out. Or at least cut it down to ten minutes. The movie would make exactly the same sense. Why spend an ungodly amount of time trying to give context to the reason Michael murders, when it seems the point of the movie is that he murders almost completely at random with little to no moral compass or preference?! Anyway, at this point the movie as I mentioned earlier pretty much just turns into at the worst a shot for shot recreation of the original, and at best a scene for scene recreation of the original. I thought a good remake was one that kept the vibes and main beats of the original but changed up enough in good taste that the audience wasn't just watching the same movie. True Grit is a perfect example of the original being great, but the remake also being pretty good as well, and not just a carbon copy of the John Wayne one. Halloween does absolutely nothing with its source material, instead it's too afraid to be anything more than an unnecessary rehash for a modern audience. I would have rather watched the movie, where the Halloween remake had zero respect for the original and made something completely new and different. At least it would have been different.

Anywhoo, so we get to meet Jamie Lee-sorry I mean Scout Taylor-Compton's character, but it's different because she says the fuck word and makes sex jokes using bagels. I made a joke about how Jamie Lee Curtis looked way older than a high schooler in my "review" for the original, but one of the main high school girls(Annie) would have been roughly 29 or 30 when they filmed, so I guess everything comes full circle. Later, in perhaps the funniest scene of the movie, she has sex with her boyfriend on a couch. Michael walks in and rips the boyfriend off of her and she no joke asks "What's the matter"? As if a masked man breaking into your house and pulling your boyfriend off of you is a normal occurrence. The movie peters along the same as before until about the last 20 or so minutes, when shit goes down. At this point, however, it just feels like I have been forced into buying some unnecessary DLC for the movie.

BUY THE HALLOWEEN HD BLOOD AND FUCKS REMAKE GAMESTOP COLLECTOR'S EDITION NOW, AND GET 20 MINUTES OF NEW CONTENT BUNDLED IN AT AN EXORBITANTLY HIGH PRICE. WATCH THE SAME EXACT MOVIE YOU KNOW AND LOVE, EXCEPT WITH AN UGLY EARLY 2000s FILTER LAYED OVER EVERY SCENE AND WHOLE LOT OF UNEARNED VIOLENCE AND BOOOOBS. THE NEW 20 MINUTES OF CONTENT WILL HAVE YOU WATCHING THE FINAL GIRL PLAY OUTLAST, OR RATHER HIDE IN TIGHT WALLS AND RUN BACK INTO THE HOUSE AND UP THE STAIRS, AFTER ALREADY GETTING OUT OF THE HOUSE, INSTEAD OF JUST GOING ACROSS THE STREET LIKE A NORMAL HUMAN BEING. WATCH AS WE SHOVEL THE SAME BULLSHIT THAT WE ALWAYS DO DOWN YOUR THROATS, AND MAKE WAY TOO MUCH MONEY DOING IT. ONLY ON XBOX, BUT BETTER ON THE XBOX ONE S, AND EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE ON THE XBOX ONE X

GAMESTOP POWER TO THE PLAYERS

No, I don't even think I'm overreacting even a little bit.

Shark Lake is the newest installment in the Jaws franchise. After all three fans were left hanging by the edge of their seats New Year's Day 1987 during the cliffhanger of Jaw: The Revenge, industry legend Jerry Dugan was already sketching out the rough drafts for what would be his masterpiece Jaws 5. Or more appropriately as we the fans would come to know it as:

Shark Lake, or rather the hauntingly lifeless face of a man who has resigned to falling into the soul sucking, icy, black, hopeless, abyss of his career, and how many times you can let someone know you have a Ph.D. in 90 minutes.

Marketed to literally no one other than Dolph Lundgren's wallet, Shark Lake picks up right where Jaws: The Revenge left off, but now that film's hero Hoagie Newcombe (Michael Caine) is played by Dolph Lundgren (Dolph Lundgren). He has given up his dreams as a pilot, to illegally sell sharks on the black market to the lake, that's why the movie is called Shark Lake. Fans of the franchise might be disappointed to learn that while Michael Caine's character doesn't growl like a fierce lion as he did in Jaws: The Revenge, Dolph Lundgren makes sure you can only understand the first half of what he says, by mumbling gibberish at the back end of every line he speaks in the movie.

"GIVE ME BACK MY DAUGhter you ------------------------..."

This reveals to the audience a lot about his character, and we are able to gather he has trouble displaying his emotions. Not the character in the movie, just Dolph Lundgren as a human being is incapable of portraying literally any emotion other than being old. This is important as he is in the movie for a total of 34 seconds.

The film features career defining performances from

Policemanwoman, who is a fast talking, hard hitting, shoot first ask questions later, strong independent woman who don't-need-no-man, unless he has a Ph.D., and can erotically interrupt her lunch to read the Wikipedia page for bears.

Ph.D. MAN, who is a literal Sex God. Imagine if Tom Holland, Tom Hiddleston, Tom Hardy, and Tom Cruise all participated in a boy orgy, Ph.D. MAN would be the aborted fetus spawned from it. He's got a Ph.D., and all the Wikipedia pages to back it up. He is so smart he can do something as stupid as asking a police officer in full uniform if they are police, and still manage to get her to fall in love with him. Now that takes a Ph.D.

A foam pool noodle shark, who at the climax of the film, gets in no holds barred, fist fight with Dolph Lundgren, and despite its inherent pool party accessory nature, manages to hold its own for quite some time. God that must have been a joy to film.

"O.k. Dolph, we need you to act like the pool floaty is attacking you in a life or death scenario".

This is the best it's going to get

Welcome to Modern Day Filmmaking

I'm not gay, but if Harry Styles and I were in a sinking boat being shot at by the Nahtzis I would ask if he could hold my hand and gently whisper the lyrics to "Story of my Life" in my ear as I slowly drowned, kind of like in Titanic, but definitely way gayer, but also not all that gay because I am definitely straight.

Dun Dun Dun Dunkirk is overrated but it's still pretty good, and definitely worth seeing in a Dolby theater so you can jump 10ft every time someone shoots a gun or even breathes because my sweet eardrums this is louder than actual war.

I completely agree with someone who said that "Dunkirk" is not a movie, but an experience. I'd say it's even more than that. For me, "Dunkirk" is an opportune moral lesson for today's world.

Throughout the movie, I was holding my breath, hard as a rock staring at the screen. It was almost as if I could physically feel the tension in the air. Much of this achievement can be attributed to Hans Zimmer's spectacular soundtrack. Nolan made a point of using a famous sounding trick to keep this constant sensation of danger. This trick is called "Shepard tone" and consists of a sound illusion that makes the listener think that the volume is always increasing (or falling), but actually keeps the tone on the same level. It is not new, but Nolan makes this illusion a main and essential feature of this experience. And his bet works brilliantly.

An eternal state of alert permeates the entire film from start to finish. Such constant sensation allows audiences to understand the desperation of their protagonists, especially in relation to Cillian Murphy's character, who in any other film would be treated unilaterally as just a villain. But here, the characters have brains, and more importantly, they know how to value the sacrifice of each one there.

Of all the spectacular sequences of this film, a simple gesture of a character ended up leaving a bigger mark on me than anything else. It was when the son of Mark Rylance's character, even though he was very angry, chose to omit the harsh truth from Murphy's character because he understood that that man, even though he had committed mistakes, made enormous sacrifices for all of them, and that he will suffer the devastating consequences of this war throughout his life.

I don't want to be rude, but anyone who says "Dunkirk" has shallow characters sounds like an idiot.

The best and most effective way of developing characters is done exactly during the conflict, when their lives are at stake, when it's all or nothing. At this point, the characters show who they really are. Their real strengths and weaknesses. It isn't necessary, especially in such a conflict-filled film, to stop the whole narrative so that the characters can talk about banalities, which may or may not be true representations of their character.

It's as if "Dunkirk" had cut off the fat and just focused on being perfectionist in the essential parts.

I know that Nolan makes clear that his film has more than one protagonist, but for me, Tommy, Fionn Whitehead's character, stands a step above the others. I was more worried about him than anyone else, and that's a big achievement because I love Tom Hardy. Tommy was our avatar, our eyes during this beautiful nightmare. An excellent performance by Fionn.

Talking about Tom, again he gave us a show in a tiny space and practically using only his eyes to demonstrate emotions. Another fantastic work and another 10/10 for his brilliant career. Also, Harry Styles can act. Shortly after his presentation, I forgot the celebrity and only saw the character. Good work too.

It's funny, not to say ridiculous, that some people are criticizing Nolan for choosing to shoot "Dunkirk" using an IMAX camera because there are still few theaters that have the technology to reproduce the true IMAX. This guy had the courage to use this very expensive technology to build his new dream with the highest quality possible. This is a great incentive for the global film industry to invest more in this technology, and should be celebrated.

And I have no idea how Nolan managed to capture these incredible images, especially in aerial sequences. The scene with the airplane hovering over the beach with the engine off gave me a lump in the throat.

I don't think there was a lack of carnage either. Exposed guts would have stolen attention during the experience of sound and tension that the director wanted to present. Besides, the muffled cries of the drowning soldiers in the sinking ships are enough to send a shiver down the spine.

To conclude, I must confess that it has been a long time since I was deeply touched by a film in the cinema. When the captain noticed dark spots on the horizon and took the binoculars to identify what they were, I already thought that it were more bodies being brought by the tide. When I saw what they really were, my eyes filled with tears.

"Dunkirk" is much more than a tribute to Nolan's compatriots and the noble spirit of partnership between men. It's also a magnificent work in all aspects led by a director who seems to be in the maximum exercise of his capacities, in total harmony and control of the grandiose experience he wishes to give to the world. In addition, "Durkirk" is also a great tribute to the courage of men and boys who risked and still risk their lives fighting in wars to save our skins. And there's nothing wrong with that.

She seems to have come out of a romantic painting of the 19th century. Her character, Hannah, is the epitome of female purity with its languid and pale fragility and, of course, immaculate chastity so appreciated by painters and artists in general during romanticism.

Also, her fragile expressions and delicate movements perfectly match the atmosphere of the European castle where the film takes place.

Dead eyes, intense glance.

Gore Verbinski does another great job. It's a very enjoyable movie to watch, with long takes, beautifully framed scenes, perfect lighting and special and practical effects of the highest quality. It's a very expensive movie and you can see that in every scene.

No cameras shaking, no angles to conceal the lack of an element and no rush to show the special effects. This movie can afford to show every detail!

The plot is simple and fairly predictable well before the end, but, like the long duration (target of so much criticism), it didn't bother me, because since the first scene, the visual spectacle was what attached me to the film.

I know the excuse that not every film has to be innovative is already getting old, but a very well executed classic concept should also be celebrated, especially when, from the beginning of the film, you can see that the focus is on the visual aspect. Which by itself is already extremely difficult to accomplish. Even more so with such perfectionism as I've seen here.

Before concluding, I must say that I have the impression that Gore Verbinski was quite inspired by the work of the master Shinji Mikami, especially in the games "Resident Evil 4" and "The Evil Within" Not only in relation to the style of the settings and the production in general, but also in relation to some points of the plot as a castle surrounded by a village submissive to the lord of the castle, with a parasite/animal capable of prolonging human life (RE4), and also contain a powerful organization conducting scientific experiments with patients from a clinic without the world knowing (TEW). All very visually similar to the style of these games, especially "The Evil Within". Maybe that's one of the reasons I liked the style of this movie so much.

"A Cure for Wellness" is one of the most well-crafted films that I've ever seen. Watching this was like having an orgasm with my eyes. The plot is very simple, but, in the end, it doesn't matter, because the film is told with such care and beauty that the result is a jaw-dropping visual masterpiece, which in the future will probably gain the cult status and celebration it deserves.

Deanna Russo does a good job as the protagonist Mary, a wife and mother of two children who is having trouble saying goodbye to youth for good, and moves to this ridiculous suburb, extremely cartoonish and exaggerated. And obviously, Mary, as the new neighbor, is the cool fish out of water that every man in the movie, from the hot neighbor's son to the postman, wants to fuck. It's very unnecessary and often creepy, as in the participation of Jeff Daniel Phillips, one of Rob Zombie's favorites.

Seriously, this movie has no characters. It has caricatures already seen in thousands of other movies that have tried to portray suburban families in a funny way, and/or make social criticism ridiculing this lifestyle.

And it also happens to have a cringy psychopathic ice cream man who kills some useless character here and there for no good reason. He moves and talks like a middle-age, low-budget terminator. Pathetic.

The death scenes are weak and boring and the practical effects are basically just fake blood.

Worst of all is the unbearable slowness in which the story unfolds. The characters speak with long pauses and completely unnecessary sentences. And it doesn't help the bad acting of most actors. It's not funny. It's embarrassing.

John Redlinger has an incredible body, but he is very strange here. He looks like a 30-year-old ken doll wannabe trying to pass himself off as a young man just out of high school.

The ending features a great twist that tries to value all previous events, but that is poorly explained and makes very little sense. One last desperate attempt to try to save the horrible plot that doesn't work simply because the said events are so annoying that, in the end, nobody cares what they really are.

If it weren't for the charisma of Deanna Russo, "The Ice Cream Truck" would be a complete zero.

David Sandberg is the director but every detail of the production, from the color palette to the angles used, reminds us of Wan's other works, not only in the recently announced "The Conjuring Universe", but also in "Insidious", his other franchise that started his new career phase.

Unlike the mess made by Universal in its newborn (stillborn?) "Dark Universe", this new universe was established in the right way, on strong bases, after three great box office hits and other films already in progress ("The Nun" and "The Crooked Man").

Say what you like about the simplicity of Wan's films, because what matters is that this formula works. And despite appearing "easy", it's not, and requires full attention in creating the tense atmosphere, in choosing the perfect angles to value the scenarios and the perfect timing to put some jumpscare, that can surprise the experienced public and maintain the constant sensation of insecurity.

The camera hardly ever focuses only on the character. There are always other elements in the composition of the shot: a door open, a suspicious object, a dark corridor and etc. Also, the scenery, clothes, hair, framing... everything is flawless! Just look at that wonderful vintage lantern on the poster, for example.

Going completely against most other recent films of the genre, that always want to pass an almost mandatory realism (so people can see themselves inside the film), here there are no annoying cameras shaking or quick cuts. Everything is shown in detail during long takes.

"Annabelle: Creation" also does another thing I LOVE in horror movies or games: it presents and delineates the scenario in an efficient and organic way, using each little corner and creating a sense of familiarity with each room.

The cast is great, especially Talitha Bateman and Lulu Wilson (again starring in a surprisingly good sequence of a bad movie). And again Javier Botet does an excellent job interpreting the creature.

During the film, Sandberg manages to fit so many excellent little moments of horror that it's difficult to highlight a single high point of the film. For me, the most tense and memorable moments were: the flashback narrated by the mother, the toy gun scene, and definitely the stair lift scene! Poor girls...

Along with the qualities, unfortunately, came a few common defects from other Wan's films. Again, the film exaggerates the sound effects during the scares. There was no need for it because the atmosphere itself is already tense enough to scare. It doesn't require a strong beat to mark the big climax in the scene.

In addition, the ending was quite "safe". Nothing new, but, at least, the director manages to establish a good connection with the first "Annabelle".

But my biggest problem remains the uneven powers presented by the devil during its attacks. I know the focus is on presenting a fun and well-crafted haunted house ride but the alternation between violent attacks capable of tear someone apart and moments where the demon can't pull a single child down is ridiculous. At least this creates more moments of tension than sheer carnage, which can break the tone and should've been avoided.

"Annabelle: Creation" is another well-crafted "fast-food" horror with the James Wan's "seal of quality", where each scene is a feast to the eyes and a little torture to the ears.