Reviews

I've had enough of the "Halloween fandom" that believes every entry into this tired franchise is positive.

This film is a disaster! The idea that Michael lacks agency and is instead controlled by a cult living underneath the Smith's Grove Mental Hospital is a joke.

The "Man in Black", wearing cheap cowboy boots with spurs no less is terrible.

This film, snd the trilogy it was a part of should never have been made.

The story, the writing, the acting, and the horror thrills are very bad.

The original film's spirit has been corrupted by greedy producers who want to attach their stamp to a classic film.

Enough.

I really admire how much work went into this film.

The 70's ethic was recreated believably and the set and wardrobe folks are to be commended. As are the sound people.

The movie is comprised of found footage or previously unreleased footage of a TV talk show which featured some special Halloween guests to boost ratings.

The host has his own tragic, sensational backstory to add to the plot of what takes place in the hour-long talk show episode.

The story is compelling and tragic and has some references to the occult participation of the protagonist talk show celebrity.

The issue I note with the movie is the individual segments of the guests who each have a few moments of terror in the film. These subsections of the film come off as separate chapters and take away from the focus of the film, the title, the Late Night with the devil interview.

Other than this disjointed assembly of characters, the film is entertaining for its throwback qualities and the interesting characters assembled.

I wanted to like this film and give it my recommendation. I can't.

Its a great story idea and a lot of work went into it, but by the time the movie gets going, I lost interest in the characters.

Its about a 30- something man who drags his wife and 1-year old into the Irish forest to do tree experiments. He is warned to stop, refuses, and the Irish fairie-creatures attack him and his family. Just as the locals advised him.

The story gets more confusing as it progresses, and most of the movie is filmed at night, in a forest, or in low light. Its hard to follow sometimes.

The movie falls apart completely in the second half when the husband becomes possessed or occupied by tree roots or demons.

The story isn't cohesive. By the end, Id lost interest completely. This film is about 20 minutes too long, and visually too dark.

I saw all the hype and the rave reviews. What is wrong with people? Critics I understand. Its their job to write for the industry and keep it alive.

But the claims from the general public?

This show is so over the top and the characters so overwrought that it was difficult for me to get through 3 episodes. The main character, Carmy, is a flat mess, but not in a realistic way. Im supposed to believe his expertise and backstory. I don't. Its like a poor attempt at re-creating Anthony Bourdain's edginess.

And Sidney! She's constantly making exaggerated facial movements and drawing out her sentences for dramatic effect. It's not authentic.

Carmy's sister acts like shes in love with Carmy. Thats what I thought when she talks to him. Its very odd.

Richie is an As*hat, we get it. But he wouldn't be tolerated in the real restaurant world.

But that brings me to my point.

This mess of yelling and over-dramatic posing is all about a small, mediocre sandwich shop in a forgotten part of Chicago?

This doesn't make sense and it doesn't merit the staff drama and turmoil that's presented each episode.

They make sandwiches, right?

This movie seems likevit was based on a concept of a supernatural encounter in a pool. That is what the trailer shows. That is not enough to sustain a feature length movie, so backstories had to be written to prop up the pool scene.

The plot is supposedly about a pool built over an old wishing well. A wish or desire is sought, the waters in the pool grant the wish, but someone must die to make it happen.

This film looks like it was written backwards. The storyline doesn't stay true to the fable, and once the premise is not followed, the film deteriorates.

The writing is weak; some of the script is downright bad.

The child actors are poor.

And there it is. . . In the end credits; "Night Swim is based on a short film. . ." Sometimes short films don't translate to the big screen.

I really enjoyed the first half of this 4 season show. Then, in order to stretch out the series, the writers add a character named "Ben", Wendy's wayward brother, who destroys season 3 and nearly ruins everything.

Ive not been this disappointed in a series that started off so well. Why was this character interjected into the plot? To provide filler and pad the story it seems. The result is a frustrating, over-dramatic mess for almost all of season 3. The failure of the writers to accurately portray a character is the reason for this monumental plot failure.

I couldn't watch after this. Sometimes its best to accept that less of something good is more!

Norm is a good guy, and treats the locals politely and as friends. It's high gloss hipster-travel and carefully curated brands in clothing, bikes, and locations.

Season 6 episode featuring his female guest and him in Portugal is branding and promotion of her business. Everything about her appearance is carefully constructed. I give him credit for acknowledging that Americans, through their instagram travel and luxury spending, have ruined Portugal and other wonderful places.

I hope people take the hint.

Norm and his guests have limited vocabulary and use the "brocabulary" words like "Right?", "Dude" (even in addressing women), "good vibes", "Thank you SO much", and even "Adorable!" There's only so many times you can describe a landscape or ocean view as "beautiful" and have it be authentic.

It's light-hearted fare. It's a love-fest. It's sort of a guys' fantasy show. The filming is the best part and the location shooting with drones and on-bike cams and microphones are great. Its a good show for glossy travel ideas.

I finally watched this because it wss being mentioned so much as a "Hidden gem". Its not hidden, nor is it a gem.

This series seems an awful lot like "American Horror Story" to me. The characters are supposed to be traumatized and interesting, but they are simply cliches. The children's portrayals are especially poor. I felt nothing for any of the characters who come across as selfish modern millennials.

I think borrowing the Shirley Jackson novel theme was inappropriate. That novel, and the 1963 movie were great. This is an attempt to capitalize on those works, but this should not have been undertaken.

This series moves ploddingly. There's nothing really scary about it. I feel like Mike Flanagan should be more creative and develop his own characters and stories like he did with his first two movies. Paying heavy homage to his idols, Jackson and Stephen King, isn't working.

This series has been very popular with younger audiences on reddit and other social media platforms. The director is very popular also.

So, I watched it with great expectations. I was disappointed. This series appears to be an amalgam of Stephen King novels, written as a tv series. It's pretty obvious. The writing is highlighted by long monologues by the cliched, one-dimensional island people.

The characters are over-the-top rubes, mostly, and theres some lofty themes presented about addiction, religion, life, and death. Frightening it is not. Excruciatingly long-winded, yes.

If this was an original story, It would be more interesting, but its not. I felt like I was watching a tv mini-series copying "Salems Lot".

Its clear Mike Flanagan worships Stephen King. I think he should separate his idols from his future productions.

This movie is so vapid and contrived that I found my attention drifting throughout. The supporting actors are hollow figures built to support a thin story about family acceptance.

There's nothing finny, controversial, sexy, or interesting in this movie. Sebastian Manasculo is funny because of his incredulous reactions to people's behavior and his incisive commentary. There is none of that. It feels like the script was written by AI-- an inoffensive, inclusive for- the- sake-of-it fairytale we've all seen before too often.

Deniro is mailing it in. Im not sure why he takes these roles. How many times can he play the older, grumpy, father figure in these similar screenplays?

I waited two months for this movie price to drop in order to stream it. It was a waste of time and money.

This series is beautiful to watch. The cinematography is great, the acting, for the most part is very good, and the writing is good.

There are multiple plotlines, probably two too many. It becomes hard to figure out who is who. It's a small community, so I imagine everything is interconnected as depicted. The series moves from story to story without much momentum sometimes. This is my only complaint. Some of the plotlines could be left out, I think.

The 1970's cars are cool, despite being suspiciously free of grime despite mostly paved roads! It's a nice little story at its heart and entertaining.

This movie is a grift. Its 1 hour and 40 minutes of art school experimentalism that looks contrived and falsely retro.

The director thought he was making something really cool and avant-garde, but if people are honest with themselves they will admit that its boring and pretentious footage that was mass marketed to mainstream audiences as a must see horror film.

"Skinamarink" is going to make things difficult for other new filmmakers to get their horror projects made and shown on the big screen. Why? Because its really difficult for a small horror film to make it into theatre distribution, and a film like "Skinamarink", which is nothing more than an experimental short film concept, makes audiences more cynical. Not to mention theatre owners. People are becoming wary of the hype, and aren't going to pay for vanity projects with questionable promotion.

This movie was cleverly leaked and the faux outrage on reddit and other film sites and blogs drove the buzz. It was supposed to be a "creepy", nightmarish horror film, marketed to the mainstream horror community. What we got was an arthouse movie with no context for anything, no perspective, and no explanation. Its over 1 1/2 hours of out- of- frame video and upside down camera angles. Two kids padding around a house at night. Odd noises, Cartoons. Old school filters. But its not scary.

"I want the audience to come to their own conclusions." Really? That's just lazy filmmaking.

I didn't pay to watch this film in a theatre. I had heard many negative comments about people who did pay to see it, then felt ripped off. It may be worth streaming and having on in your house as background wallpaper. Just don't pay good money for it.

Beware the hype of this film, and the generous, glowing reviews by people who confuse a good actor with a good movie.

This movie is simply boring and non compelling. There's an attempt at demonstrating some type of emotional abuse theme, but the backdrop for this theme is unrealistic and not credible.

The actors are well-renowned. The movie fails in the plot, and writing.

This is not a horror movie. It's a drama, and not a compelling one. It didn't strike a cord with me, or make me feel empathy for the female protagonist. Her character didn't match her decision-making. I think there is a very generous rating inflation occurring here.

The film is about 45 minutes too long, as others have remarked. Its clear that the Director got carried away. There are some plot developments that do not fit at all with the original movie. Sometimes, when Directors get their hands on a bigger budget, they feel they have to expand the plots and runtime. Less is always more!

The plot elements add confusion to a simple plot, which had it been kept to around 90 minutes, would have had more impact. The carnage was not as bad as the internet hype made it out to be. None of this type of carnage was new. It had been done in many other movies already.

I think the Creator of "Terrifier 2" put extra thematic story lines into the sequel unnecessarily.

It borders on fantasy or sci-fi in the end. My advice to the Creator or Director is to "Keep it short and sweet."

This movie has no redeeming qualities or message. At what point in America did movies like this become mainstream enough that they would be featured on a platform like Amazon Prime? I think the mid-90's ----something happened in American pop culture that allowed us to arrive where we are today with the glorification of creative suffering as depicted in movies like "The Woman", and in franchises such as "Hostel" or "Saw." There are dozens of other examples, of course, and then there is the "seepage" of such films into other less wanton films.

There's two pieces to this terrible film that overlap and minimize the acting effort of the person portraying the feral woman. There is the idea of the feral woman being captured and restrained, and then there is the pathological family and their attendant behaviors. Mixing the two is exploitative and the carnage is simply gratuitous and for voyeurism.

Hipsters will applaud the creativity and fine acting to justify an artistic project. This is not art nor creativity.

This is unnecessary film making defined.

Blumhouse Productions is overrated and people should not have such high expectations of its releases.

This movie was highly polished in its attempt to recreate a 70's movie set, but that money and work is wasted because the plot has no tension, momentum, or explanation.

The young actors are mostly good, even though the script is not appropriate for the age group in question.

The story is about missing boys, taken from a tiny neighborhood in Denver. The fact that crimes of this type went unsolved after the first kidnapping is unreal and destroys credibility going forward.

There is no terror here despite the themes. Nathan Hawke's character is never developed or explained, just a strange neighborhood magician, driving around the same two blocks of the Jr High using clusters of black balloons to force boys into his van in broad daylight. This is just not likely and reasonable, so the film can't recover.

The writers employ odd plot devices to create the new industry buzzword "creepiness", which is so overused it no longer has real meaning. Dead kids call the basement on a disconnected phone, but just as easily appear in person or move objects to help the protagonist trapped in the basement.

Theres a dream element with anti-God themes from a 6th grade girl which seems inauthentic. Theres a strange amount of violence which, for a suburban Jr High in the 1970's doesn't make sense.

The movie stops and starts and never gains momentum due to the writing. Nathan Hawke didn't need to be wasted in this movie. You cant tell its him, and the role doesn't require any special acting. I felt nothing for Hawke's character and still don't understand his characterization. Was he motivated by sex? Mental Illness?

Revenge? We wont know because it wasn't important to the writers.

I lost focus on this film halfway through. The story didn't hold up on several levels. The Police are made to look stupid. Where are the parents? How many freaky magicians driving black vans live in a 2- block area of multiple abductions?

The Hollywood hype machine wants people to believe that Blumhouse is the gold standard for horror now.

Far from it. There are smaller studios and better writers out there that can produce horror movies with believable back stories and solid writing.

"The Black Phone" seemed like a rip- off of "It" (which was not a good film) and "Stand by Me", plus maybe a popular TV show.

Horror has become homogenized by big money. The "Halloween" franchise is ruined and people seem to want films like "The Conjuring" and its multiple spin-offs. That is for Blumhouse to supply.

For what was spent on this cluster of a film, several small, true, well-written horror films could be made.

"The Black phone" is a big letdown.

Blumhouse, are you listening? Sometimes less is more!

It's not too late to turn this series around.

Honey Chandler's characterization as a foul-mouthed, rogue defense attorney ruins this series. It doesn't seem authentic, and, coupled with Bosch's characterization as a private investigator with no boundaries, the two characters commit at least ten felonies while conducting business.

Both Honey Chandler and Bosch would be prosecuted and lose their professional licenses for removing evidence from crime scenes, not reporting felonies to the LAPD, coercing clients and witnesses, breaking and entering, carrying and using concealed weapons, and a dozen other criminal and ethical breaches that the two commit with no consequences! Los Angeles is crazy, but not this crazy.

Another problem is the characterization of Bosch's daughter as an LAPD "rookie", or "boot". The term "boot" is used constantly and It comes off as inauthentic. It's hard to believe this character as a female cop. She just doesn't have it, and the dialogue and personal interactions between her and her "FTO" are stilted and unrealistic.

The plot lines are questionable aside from Bosch's daughter's rookie thread.

Are we are expected to get excited about a group of Russian mobster-types stealing tanker trucks full of gasoline? This is the crime that Bosch and Chandler expend huge risk and resource on? Committing burglaries and wiretapping and theft and destruction, and then, when the murders and explosions occur, they don't even contact police. Chandler appears at two homicide scenes and removes a cell phone from one, and witnesses murder at another, which doesn't seem to require her do anything as a witness, or officer of the court.

There had to have been technical and legal advisors for this series, right?

The plot line that an on-duty LA housing Inspector would don different "Lucha Libre" masks to commit rapes, then target "Maddy" in her home after being discovered is stretching credulity.

Who is the female ninja assassin who apparently practices in a military compound high above LA with no fanfare? This character is difficult to imagine.

There are simply too many unbelievable characters. The writers need to tighten up their game and develop plots and characters who are accurate and who people care about. It's a disservice to the viewer to have the primary and supporting characters behaving as they do in this series.

The beauty of the original "Bosch" (in its early episodes) was the on- location filming in Hollywood and an inside look at LAPD and LA City legal/political culture. Though overly-dramatized in many ways, you could forgive this as a way to create interest and make the plots come to life. But the original, early episodes were believable and made sense.

The current production of "Bosch: Legacy" has become a cartoon strip of cliched characters that don't truly exist in law enforcement or the private sector. Can it be corrected? I hope so. I love Titus Welliver and Michael Connelly! This series deserves better, more compelling and accurate characters and plotlines.

THEMATIC SPOILERS AHEAD: This movie is about a Swedish death cult living in a modern day commune outside of Stockholm somewhere. The film set is a grass field with brand new- built structures that look exactly like a movie set or re-creation of some sort of historical village.

The theme, I believe is that cultural communities regard aging and death differently, and this movie goes way over the top in displaying suicide and violent mercy killing. You will be hit over the head with this message until you realize that the violence depicted is totally gratuitous and not redeeming in any way.

Despite earlier reviews that portray the female protagonist, Dani, as "transformed" by the carnage in this film, there is no such journey depicted. I know the writers were trying to make a high-minded culturally shocking film about loss, grief, depression, and death, but this movie fails to generate for me any interest in the American or British visitors to the commune.

First of all, the casting is poor. The young actors are flat, juvenile, and if they are supposed to be representative of Graduate students in America then we are in more trouble then I thought. The characterization of the young Americans in particular is poor. One young man is seen "vaping" during the cult festival, and constantly obsessed with sex and hedonistic pursuits. Hardly a scholar. He acts like teen from "American Pie."

Another character is portrayed researching his thesis by taking cell phone images, and being as intrusive as possible while ceremonies and deaths occur. Yet, he expresses no real outrage at this! He's concerned his pudgy, flat, dopey friend might now declare his thesis as the exact same study! In fact, none of the American students seem scholarly, of course maybe that's what happens when you choose "European Summer celebrations" for your Master's thesis. I was not convinced that any of these actors were academics.

Simply poor casting, and mediocre acting. If the basic background presented is not believable, I cannot buy into the subsequent acting.

The suicide theme as some sort of graceful "cross-cultural dying with dignity" is grossly distorted and excessively portrayed. It's simply too much. In fact, any of the lofty themes presented here are not pulled off at all. Despite all the gross, gratuitous shots of suicide, death, and mercy killing, we are supposed to believe that the protagonist Dani, whose family have recently died in a murder-suicide, and is ignored by her pudgy boyfriend throughout, is somehow transformed and at peace and accepted into the death cult. It's terrible and ludicrous.

The cinematography is very good, despite taking place on a glorified "Little House on the Prairie" film set. There are excellent costumes and elaborate rituals portrayed---- and that presents the final problem.

This movie is about 15 minutes too long and you should blame the overindulgence of the editor and writer, or director.

There are way too many gratuitous "open field" scenes with the cast and extras milling or dancing about.

Without any true transformation or redemption, even a maladaptive one, this film is profoundly and purposefully flawed.

Its pure depression and sickness with a faux happy ending.

I enjoyed "the Witch" and "Hereditary" immensely. Each was restrained in its presentation of dark themes. Midsommar is not like those films and I couldn't tell the same producers or team was behind it.

Sometimes with success comes bigger budgets, bigger egos, and overindulgence.

You can probably watch this movie using the fast forward button on your remote at half-speed and not miss any plot developments. Each shot is about 10 seconds too long and the only explanation for this is self-indulgent editing. It's kind of like when you take a video camera along on your vacation and spend valuable time and footage on everything you see and realize later that most of your shots were unnecessary and boring. This movie is not a "foreign version of The Witch" and is not a "slow burn" to anything. There are no supernatural elements to this film as it's a basic study of isolation, psychosis, post-partem depression, and paganism from 600 years ago. This is a lame version of "The Wind" most likely. The cinematography is great; after the first 15 minutes it gets old. A word to directors and producers: Please stop making movies that are so ambiguous that there is no reasonable explanation for the audience! This is lazy film making and people shouldn't have to go online and seek a definitive interpretation to enjoy the film. Ambiguity to a point can be an interesting plot device. "Hagazussa" tries too hard to be cloudy and that detracts significantly from the film.

I love the M. Night franchise with the usual exceptions. This was a complete failure in terms of building up to some sort of meaningful reveal. It was a wasted Oscar-worthy performance by Mr. Mcavoy, and in the end it turns out that the whole thing was about an attempt to show that there are superheroes everywhere walking among us and that perhaps anyone can overcome their tragedies or disabilities and rise up. But this is not the vehicle for that idea. The story itself has comic book characters, but the supporting stories are poorly represented. The state hospital where the three superheroes are kept is possibly the worst staffed high security facility ever represented on film! A psychiatrist is visiting for three days to evaluate the trio, but nobody bothers to Google her or ask her to wear a name tag? Psychiatric cells for high risk patients have no windows on them requiring the skeleton crew staff to walk blindly into a cell? An elaborate secret organization that can form its own police force and prevent the outside world and media from scrutiny? Not to mention there's no medical staff except nursing assistants at this sprawling state hospital! We're asked to believe the fantastic, but the little details of everyday life don't seem practical! And that is what makes the other elements of the story so hard to get on board with . . . M. Night needs to pay more attention to the basic plot lines before asking us to believe the fantastic. This time his plot twists have no real impact because he fails to have a screenplay that convinces us to care. I didn't feel connected to the actors at all. Mcavoy's character is a serial killer. Mr. Glass a mass murderer. Bruce Willis a good guy but lacking expression or nuance.

People confuse celebrity with Integrity.

This is a great documentary that provides "inside baseball"----- no pun intended----- to the Steroid use era. Specifically, It's wonderful to see cheaters such as Ryan Braun, AROD, and Melky Cabrera being publicly exposed. I remember Ryan Braun and how he and his legal team discredited the gentleman who obtained his urine sample. Terrible. AROD has no shame. The sheer number of players involved is staggering and disappointing. This documentary uses a light-hearted style to expose the cheaters and liars who took the American people for a ride, denied their culpability and tried to make others look bad. It's must see viewing to learn that the players who people lionize can be absolute losers when it comes to personal integrity. I hate seeing AROD still involved in MLB, and I can't wait until Ryan Braun leaves the game for good. People haven't forgotten that you clowns betrayed our trust.

This movie had good promise. It's based on a movie from the 1920's but deviates from that film significantly. This movie is created in the vein of "The Witch" (see it !) and perhaps "Hereditary" to compare three recent film examples. The Wind wants you to try and figure out if the antagonists are mentally ill, or if there exists a supernatural force on the prairie where the four homesteaders come to live. The music is nice, and appropriate for the stark landscapes. The cinematography captures the beauty of the mid--west prairie in the early 20th century America.

The problem with this movie is the writing and editing which attempt to achieve mystery and tension by presenting the sequence of events out of linear order. Granted, flashbacks can be effective in storytelling. In "The Wind", it's just too much! There are too many similar shots of wistful looks, confused moments and chronologically disjointed discoveries that confused me and were probably unnecessary.

This is not a movie that needs this technique to this degree. We learn that mental illness, anxiety and depression are present in the isolation of the prairie life. We suspect there are hallucinations and even chloroform -inspired dream sequences.

The writers help us out with tidbits of juxtaposed backstories. But in the end, it's a bit too much. It's a bit too slow and self indulgent to be rated higher. Sometimes it's possible to be too creative. Some movies are worth the energy to try and figure out. "The Wind" is not . . .