The first story is okay. It doesn't have any supernatural elements, but Ali Larter is okay as the woman who is driven nuts by a failing business and her obsession with her grandmother. While C. Thomas Howell goes from the "normal guy" to someone driven to madness by his sister's obsession and the failing business. He's a murderer so he needs a 'Creepshow'-style comeuppance, but you feel more pity for him than anything. Iman Benson is okay as an influencer. Kind of annoying, but aren't they all?
I get the impression 'Dead and Breakfast' was intended mostly as a commentary on the Internet community, the true crime genre, and the obsession of the Internet with the "next big things". If you freeze frame and read the scroll of comments on the podcast, eh are kinda amusing and probably what viewers would think.
Overall, it's nice to see Larter back, and Howell doing... something.
The second story, 'Pesticide', is a bit of a mess, mainly because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Josh McDermott is one of those "buttcrack blur collar workers", but makes the character Harlan King annoying. Keith David and Ashley Lawrence are okay, and kick the segment up a notch or two. But there's one too many "dream within a dream" segment, and it's not clear if Harlan is imagining anything. Or if Murdoch is bringing on the hallucinations (if they are hallucinations). And then Brenda the therapist starts acting creepy and like she knows Harlan planted the roaches, but then comes back and swats him dead, apparently unwittingly.
And then Murdoch shows up at the end as an exterminator, and does a sinister laugh as only Keith David can do. And I'd pay good money to see Keith D play Satan. But... is that what he's doing? Harlan calls him the Devil, but it Murdoch the Devil? If so, he seems engaged in pretty small potatoes. Or maybe he's a roach somehow turned into human and trying to get revenge on them. Or maybe he's just a businessman as he and (initially) Harlan originally says. But then how does he turn up at the end as an exterminator? Harlan is a jerk, sure, but he doesn't kill anyone until Murdoch pays him a lot of money to do it. And even then, Harlan doesn't go through with it. He kills the homeless man in self-defense after the guy comes after Harlan with a knife. And Harlan drops the poison in the soup by accident. And how does anything leak out of its containment vial?
Brenda doesn't do anything we see to deserve a visit from the Big D. Or be made an unwitting killer. Nor does Harlan deserve death at her hands for putting some roaches in her house. Even if she knew it for sure, and she only suspects. And that's the problem with the whole segment: it's irony without a punchline. Harlan kills vermin! Harlan hallucinates bugs growing giant-sized and attacking him! Harlan gets shrunk to bug size... somehow. Is it all hallucinations? Who knows? Who cares? Harland isn't even dopily likable in the way that Jody Verdill was in the first movie.
So overall the second segment is a loser. Big time. It's saved only by Keith David's performance, and the F/X for the giant bugs. But that's it.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. What do you think?
I get the impression 'Dead and Breakfast' was intended mostly as a commentary on the Internet community, the true crime genre, and the obsession of the Internet with the "next big things". If you freeze frame and read the scroll of comments on the podcast, eh are kinda amusing and probably what viewers would think.
Overall, it's nice to see Larter back, and Howell doing... something.
The second story, 'Pesticide', is a bit of a mess, mainly because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Josh McDermott is one of those "buttcrack blur collar workers", but makes the character Harlan King annoying. Keith David and Ashley Lawrence are okay, and kick the segment up a notch or two. But there's one too many "dream within a dream" segment, and it's not clear if Harlan is imagining anything. Or if Murdoch is bringing on the hallucinations (if they are hallucinations). And then Brenda the therapist starts acting creepy and like she knows Harlan planted the roaches, but then comes back and swats him dead, apparently unwittingly.
And then Murdoch shows up at the end as an exterminator, and does a sinister laugh as only Keith David can do. And I'd pay good money to see Keith D play Satan. But... is that what he's doing? Harlan calls him the Devil, but it Murdoch the Devil? If so, he seems engaged in pretty small potatoes. Or maybe he's a roach somehow turned into human and trying to get revenge on them. Or maybe he's just a businessman as he and (initially) Harlan originally says. But then how does he turn up at the end as an exterminator? Harlan is a jerk, sure, but he doesn't kill anyone until Murdoch pays him a lot of money to do it. And even then, Harlan doesn't go through with it. He kills the homeless man in self-defense after the guy comes after Harlan with a knife. And Harlan drops the poison in the soup by accident. And how does anything leak out of its containment vial?
Brenda doesn't do anything we see to deserve a visit from the Big D. Or be made an unwitting killer. Nor does Harlan deserve death at her hands for putting some roaches in her house. Even if she knew it for sure, and she only suspects. And that's the problem with the whole segment: it's irony without a punchline. Harlan kills vermin! Harlan hallucinates bugs growing giant-sized and attacking him! Harlan gets shrunk to bug size... somehow. Is it all hallucinations? Who knows? Who cares? Harland isn't even dopily likable in the way that Jody Verdill was in the first movie.
So overall the second segment is a loser. Big time. It's saved only by Keith David's performance, and the F/X for the giant bugs. But that's it.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. What do you think?