Arrival

Arrival is an attempt to take a more realistic approach to how an alien visitation would play out, especially within global politics. The main thrust is that Amy Adams has to find out what the aliens want before any other country can fuck it up and they did a great job in casting Amy Adams. I'm not usually any more than indifferent of Adams, but she does a great job here with what she's given. Jeremy Renner does as good as Jeremy Renner can do with a character that isn't just stoic bad-ass. I like Renner, but unlike other alien films, Arrival isn't an "alien invasion" movie where he can run around shooting stuff and making quips, so I'm not sure he was the best choice. The only other actor of note is Forrest Whitaker, who does fine, but he has this stupid accent that has no purpose. I had to watch interviews with him to make sure he wasn't just doing an accent every other time and this was his real voice. No, he does some unnatural accent that really draws you out of the film because there is no reason for it. It's not a foreign accent or a regional one (or at least not one that I've ever heard), it's just some made up shit he does for no reason. The plot is fine for where they are trying to go with the story. Personally, there are some tropes that I really fucking hate and Arrival rides on one of the ones I hate the most. I won't say what it is, because Arrival really should not be spoiled, but subjectively it was a stupid bullshit play and it makes things unnecessarily confusing. Arrival is about the aliens coming to Earth, but that serves more as the gasoline that fuels the very human drama that is very dialog driven and much more about Amy Adams than any of the aliens. I'm unclear about how long the movie takes place, but once they establish the motive of the movie, it feels cheap to skip a huge chunk of time and give us a montage of what happens instead of keeping the flow of progression. The movie takes place mostly in Montana and we get some beautiful scenery and the sets are all great. The cinematography has some interesting ideas and they use shots and colors to enhance the plot. not just document it. Hearing the comparisons to Interstellar, I was afraid of how arrogant, indulgent, and pretentious Arrival might be and while I understand now what they were trying to convey with the comparison, Arrival is none of those things. Arrival doesn't pretend that it's more than it is. There are a few story that keep my personal score from going beyond a four, but I don't see how anyone who watches Arrival knowing what kind of movie Arrival is could give it much less. If you put on Arrival expecting Mars Attacks, Alien, Independence Day, or any other sci-fi spectacle films you are going to be disappointed, Arrival is much more of a drama. Sure, it is technically a sci-fi because aliens, but that's not the drive of the film. If you choose to watch Arrival with the understanding that it can be slow and aggravating and has none of the flash and awe of a typical Sci-Fi, but replaces those with authentic characters and drama, don't think you will be disappointed.

Against The Night

Against the Night is the so bad it's good horror movie I have been looking for. All of the actors are pretty bad and every character is a total moron. I watched part of it a second time with the commentary because I had to hear from the mad man that made this and he says he casted the actors via Skype, so that explains some of it. It looks like all of the electronics from Best Buy, both the ghost hunting "tools" the characters use and the ones he used to film the movie (he does mention buying one of the cameras there). Most of the movie looks like it was shot on an IPhone and doesn't quite look like a movie, but I think it looks pretty good, except for the multiple times where the camera wasn't sure what to focus on and we get blurry shots. They also didn't put much effort into the camera shots. Aside from the what we get from the cameras that the characters are holding, almost all of the other shots are also very shaky. I don't mean shaky like in the shaky-cam style but like every camera is handheld and the cameraman has shaky hands and moves to much. In all of the haunted location horror movies, the most important character is the location and while they did pick a sufficiently "haunted looking" location in Holmesburg Prison, it has some big drawbacks. The bulk of Holmesburg is abandoned, but not all of it; there is an active office building and a gymnasium that is sometimes used for prisoner overflow. This means that the totally abandoned prison of the movie, which is some made up place has florescent lights that you can see shining under doors and through doorways and through windows when they are outside. They spend most of the time in the legitimately abandoned part, so it's fine then, but the establishing shots paint a significantly different picture, although I guess active prison bureaucracy is scary too. The second issue is more of a story issue and this movie is littered with story issues. The prison is quickly established as spoke shaped, a center core with ten cell block "spokes" emanating. The spokes are not connected to each other and only connect to the core in the one place. One character shown a blueprint of the prison and asked what it looks like. Does she say spokes or a wheel? Nope! She fucking says "A crop circle!" The fuck it does! Has she seen a crop circle? We have established that cell blocks don't connect, so when the characters separate (not really a spoiler, because of course they do, it's a horror movie) and groups get locked in different cell blocks, a few go missing. The group in one cell block A (I'll just say Cell Block A because I don't think the actually name them in the movie) has already walked the length of their block and upon returning to the now locked gate that separate them from the core and hearing that some of their friends from a different cell block are missing, turn around and look for them in cell block A. Firstly, you've already walked it and they weren't there. Secondly, how could they be? They have to reason to have gone outside and the blocks do not connect! Well, eventually that second point creates a big problem because later, multiple groups find themselves in the same cell block even though one was locked in cell block A, one in B, and one in C. The only way they could have done that was to go outside and no one has gone through the outer doors. Again, they've shown us an overhead aerial shot that shows the cell blocks do not connect and the only door to the core is locked, so did they teleport, walk through a locked gate, or did someone forget that we know what the prison schematics look like? There are other glaring plot holes, but they fall into spoiler territory later in the movie. In a horror movie, they usually fall into the trope of characters making stupid, illogical and irrational decisions, but these characters push it. Again, many happen later in the movie and I'm not going to spoil anything, but they either have selective short term amnesia or are just the dumbest people alive. The story is dumb, illogical, and just confusing in summary. Another thing that sticks out is the unnecessary and illogical (there's that word again) sexual scenes. The opening has a sex scene where we can see the male character's underwear is still on (and not in a through the hole kind of way) and later the characters have to go the end of their respective cell block and place a steady cam. Everyone knows that there is a guy watching all the cameras on his laptop. One group is a couple and the start to give Mr laptop a private sex show where we see both take their tops off. Another is two girls and they make out with each other for the camera. The director says in his commentary "I wrote a lot of this movie for 13 year old boys and this is some stuff that thirteen year old boys would like." This combined with an overtly sexually aggressive character make quite a few uncomfortable scenes. There are so many problems with this movie and for most of them, the blame is purely on a lack of attention to detail and just not caring about the little things. The gore works all wrong with blood spatter being wildly overdone (the directions don't match up and the amount of blood is inconsistent with the actual slashes) and we never see the actual wounds, just copious amount of blood. There is a time where we can see the gate at the end of the cell block hallway and we see that it is shut. The we hear a slamming sound (clearly added in post) and the characters run to the gate and yell that it's closed. It was already closed before the slamming sound. For some people it may be annoying for characters to not be able to recognize a gas mask and all the other things I've mentioned and they will surely hate this movie. For me, every one of these things was hilarious. The terrible dialog (which the director says is often improvised), obvious inconsistencies and errors, and pure nonsense that this movie just oozes out make this a great "so bad it's good" movie. Don't get me wrong, clearly this is an absolutely terrible movie. Everything is just wrong and pure crap. However, I was constantly laughing and thoroughly entertained. Against the Night is a great film for a movie night with friends and I assume it's even more enjoyable after a couple 6-packs or a few bottles of wine. It won't be your favorite movie or even your favorite horror movie, but it just may be the one you enjoy watching the most. They's managed to unintentionally create one of the best comedies of 2017. As a real film, I can only give it 1.5, but as an experience, it's a 10 out of 10. I loved it.

The Cabin in the Woods

What Ready Player One tried to do for 80's nostalgia, The Cabin in the Woods masters. Try to go in with as little info as possible, because the unraveling is half of the fun. Cabin was pitched as a loving hate letter to what horror movies had become and I can definitely feel that. Cabin begins as a typical "cabin in the woods" horror movie that quickly goes off the rails. For a horror movie, Cabin manages to keep it pretty light with the humor and constant jabs at Horror tropes. The issue with making a movie that pokes at the tropes the entire time is that the stereotype characters are still just cardboard stereotypes, even if that is what you mean them to be. Beyond my totally normal obsession with Chris Hemsworth, I really don't care about any of the characters. The only other problem I really had was that I wish they explained less about the situation and let me work some of it out on my own. It's just a personal preference and I don't really hold that against the film. As a horror movie, Cabin isn't particularly scary and works more in the sci-fi/fantasy ways, but if you are a horror fan, Cabin has a lot of nods and nostalgia to unravel. It's a fun movie that plays on what we've come to expect from horror movies and adds some fresh elements that I really wasn't ready for. For me, the highlight was the plethora of outstanding practical effects. People seem to really love CGI today, but I still enjoy the realism and x-factor that practical effects can bring.

Haunting of Cellblock 11

I've seen a lot of bad horror movies and Haunting of Cellblock 11 is trying real hard to be the worst. The acting is abhorrent and the characters are totally undeveloped. Everyone who isn't one of the main 4 people (who aren't great either) probably is not an actor and just someone they found in the town they were shooting in. The worst part is the terrible plot. The movie is an hour an twenty-five minutes including credits and it takes them almost half an hour to actually begin the investigation of the prison. They waste time setting up a backstory that is wholly irrelevant and highlights the studio boss who is the worst actress I have ever seen. Things don't get any better when we get to the prison, as the effects are awful and they can't even follow their own ghost rules. When they first get there, an intern gets hurt and rolls up his sleeve with no holes in it or blood on the outside to reveal a six inch minor cut on his arm. Firstly, it's not a cut bad enough to be concerned about, but they send him away to a hospital after already loosing the other intern who they sent to go get coffee or water or something and never returns or addressed again, so they are down a fourth of their crew. Secondly, they say he probably cut it on a camera box, as if a part of the box could have gotten up his long sleeve sweatshirt 3 inches and then cut him half a foot farther up his arm. There are many things I would consider mistakes that they would have easily noticed if they bothered to watch their own film. A character says they can't possibly write off spiking EMF meters because there is no electricity in the building. They set up like 12 cameras on the walls and numerous on tripods. Let's pretend that all of these and their multitude of computer equipment is powered by a generator or their van, they still are electronic and could interfere with the meter. This is stuff I would complain about in a paranormal/ghost "reality" show, but this is a studio film with a film budget and writers and special effects teams. I won't go any farther into the plot, but it's all terrible and I've seen better paranormal stuff on Ghost Adventures. They essentially have almost an hour to create what every one of those crappy ghost hunting shows would kill to have by making everything up, using CG and practical effects, and creating their own rules for how ghosts and the paranormal work. I love Ghost Hunters and all that crap even though I don't believe in ghosts, so I'm ready suspend all belief and logic to fully buy in, but they just cash out and throw some garbage out there. I recommend this to no one. It is a terrible movie and totally fails as a horror and it's not bad in a fun bad movie way, it's just lazy nonsense.

Summer of 84

Imagine a round-table at the Nickelodeon studios. On the fall is a giant cork board covered in posters for 2017's It and Stranger Things. A man at the front of the room pitches a made-for-TV movie for the weekend before Halloween. They quickly hash out a Teen Nick mystery/thriller. That night, a man breaks in and steals the script. The next morning, that man presents his script to the HBO offices. They add some profanity and make the main characters all super horny stereotypical teens and pepper in a little blood. This "new" movie is essentially Summer of 84. Our group of 4 teenage boys are much less relatable and likable than their obvious comparisons in It and Stranger Things. For most of the movie, the three less important kids get no real characterization until over half way through the film, where they each get a throw away scene that serves no purpose other than to humanize them. I don't hate the characters as much as I thought I would after getting a sense of the PG-13 Teen Nick vibe Summer of 84 works with, but they are missing any chemistry with each other and I don't buy them as a group of friends. The acting was fine for the type of movie it is and there were no problems with the cinematography, but it doesn't do anything fun or unique. My only real problem was with the plot and it was a pretty big problem for me. Minus one scene at the end, if you took out the language, this could have easily been sandwiched between ICarly and whatever vampire/witch movie Nickelodeon is playing on Halloween. It pitches itself as a mystery, but that feels like a stretch and the posters would have you believe it's a horror and its definitely not. They are clearly drying to capitalize on the popularity of It and Stranger Things, but beyond the group of teens doing things element, they have nothing in common. Summer of 84 is predictable and very safe. They don't seem to care to much about the plot, with time passage being nonsensical. There is one scene where the characters go through some trash cans and leave the trash all over and 5 minutes later the main guy is looking out his window and it's all gone with no one to have cleaned it up. Some scenes have the day pass unreasonably fast and all of a sudden, it goes from full on day time to pitch black night with no sense that time is actually passing. I liked the idea and I like the whole "kids on bikes" genre we seem to be in the throws of, but Summer of 84 is half-assed. The ending is rushed and an unreasonable tonal shift. I have some other plot issues that fall into spoiler territory, so I won't go into those. Summer of 84 feels like a lazy cash-in that drags through the first 2 acts and then throws everything at the wheel and rushes through a strange finale. This can easily entertain a group of friends as a movie night, but it's not going to send all your guests home wanting to see it again.

Under the Skin

Under the Skin is a High School English teacher's wet dream. Under the Skin seems to have been made for the soul purpose of being over-analyzed. The actual plot is incredibly slow and sparse and most of the actors aren't real actors and it shows. The visuals are breathtaking and the score really hits all the notes the movie tries to. This is not a fun movie and that's probably why most people haven't heard of it and most of those who have really didn't like it. Under the Skin is an expertly crafted "Film" that will fully satisfy its target audience, the issue is that that target audience is pretty niche. I fall somewhere between your average movie-goer and someone who enjoys capital "F" Film. While I'm trying to work my way more toward the latter, for me, Under the Skin is way to focused on earning that capital "F" and beyond some really great cinematography and unorthodox filming (after you see the film, make sure to watch one of the mini-docs about the filming of the movie) there really isn't anything enjoyable here. If you were hoping for a fun Sci-Fi movie with cool looking aliens or a Friday night horror movie, Under the Skin is going to bore the Hell out of you. If you want a movie that requires you to dig and dig and unearth what its trying to say, Under the Skin will probably do that for you. I can appreciate the film and before a bunch of ass-holes try and tell me that I'm too stupid and I just "don't get" the movie, I understand what they are going for and I see the value in having to extrapolate afterwards, but I was looking for a movie, not a 2 hour allegory.

Exeter

Exeter manages to both not take itself too seriously and also play everything to "real", both to the point of eye-rolling. I guess the acting was fine, but the characters terribly written and I hate everyone of them. The visuals were fine and the cinematography is at least varied; there are some fun gore moments and the kills are decently creative. There were clearly some sound issues with moments where without subtitles, I wouldn't even know characters were talking and there is an astounding amount of ADR. The biggest issue is the shit-show of a story. There is confusing because it's complex and then there is confusing because no one cares enough to iron out the plot. Nothing here makes sense and the entire plot manages to confuse itself. There are to many unrealistic, stupid moments, like a man stepping on a small fire and instantaneously bursting into flame without any accelerant. For what a juvenile horror with serious frat-boy/stoner vibes, Exeter is an okay way to spend an October night, but there are tons of movies that can scratch the haunted asylum/hospital itch a lot more effectively. I didn't hate it and I appreciate the effort to be unique, but the plot is lazy and nonsensical and a few neat gore spots don't cover it.

God's Not Dead

This is exactly what you think it is. If you are a Christian, it's a saccharine 2 hours of propaganda that is either going to strengthen you faith or make you roll your eyes. If you aren't a Christian, why the fuck are you watching this? It's not going to change your mind and it's not intended to be viewed as a real movie; it's a long advert for Newsboys. If you are a looking for an actual film, this isn't going to satisfy you. If you are a Christian woman in your 40's who finds Lifetime movies too secular, congratulations, you are their entire demo. For what it tries to be, God's not dead is surprisingly well acted and at least uses a few artistic shots. The characters are the inverse equivalent to what 4Chan thinks all Christians are like; being that the writers seem to think that all Atheists are out to get them and are just the most monstrous people. Everyone here is a caricature and the plot is mindbogglingly predicable. There are some bad creative choices, like the anti-theist blogger listening to Christian Rock as she types, because we gotta sell those soundtracks and we can't have no Devil music on them. The ending is cliche and the amount of times the band Newsboys come up makes it feel like they must be bankrolling this. As a Christian, I can see the intent and while I think they did a bad job, they clearly understand their niche market. As a movie boy, God's Not Dead is a bad movie. This is grown--up Veggie Tales without the charm.

What We Do in the Shadows

While I was disappointed that WWDITS doesn't quite line up with my humor taste, the film still works. For a faux-documentary about a group of vampires living in a New Zealand town that also includes werewolves, witches, and zombies, it balances perfectly between not taking itself too seriously while also feeling as realistic and authentic as it can. I was really hoping that I would get more out of the humor, but I did appreciate the quality of it. None of it is complex, but it is smart. The acting is as good as it needs to be and the practical effects and CG are serviceable. Even without connecting to the humor, the story was interesting and I liked the characters. Hopefully the Kiwi comedy works for you.

Ant-Man and the Wasp

The first Ant-Man was awful, easily in the bottom tier of the MCU movies (I hated it the most) and this sequel is at least better. The plot is worse, in that we don't really have a coherent story so much as a sequence of events, but at least the "villain" is unique and more fleshed out than Yellow Jacket was. The acting was great except for Scott's entourage of morons who they brought back from the original. TI is not an actor, stop pretending that he is an actor. Michael Peña is not funny and even more annoying that last time. David Dastmalchian I don't really remember from the original atrocity, but here he serves no purpose, just like TI, other than to waste screen time. I really like Paul Rudd and I wish they would give him more to work with other than the same saccharine "I'm doing it for my daughter" cliche. The highlight of the first film was the novel fight scenes with the Pym tech having the characters fight on toy train tracks and such. This time, they don't really play with that other than constant size changes to duck punches and kicks. Ant-Man and the Wasp is still kind of fun, but it's really just a half-assed Ant-Man film. The timeline within the MCU also raises a lot of questions, especially the post-credits scene which really doesn't make sense considering the implication of when it takes place. From what I can tell, this film has no baring on the MCU and is unessential, so unless you really liked Michael Peña and thought, "Man, I wish we saw even more of him!" or you have that infernal "need" to see the whole MCU story (like I do), you can totally skip it. All of the actors are trying their best with what they are given, but the writers clearly don't give half a shit and misunderstood what people enjoyed about the first film.