Reviews

I actually really enjoyed the general premise of this movie, and LMN movies are always cheesy and campy, so I was expecting it - but this one wasn't "so bad, it's good", it was just bad. Numerous issues, including a really frustrating one where the killer's wife was said by a nurse to have passed away, only for her to be completely alive in a later scene. Jay was obviously the killer from the beginning; there weren't even any red herrings thrown in, and he both looked and behaved creepily straight from the beginning. All the cringeworthy minimalism stuff wore thin in less than a second, and there was something off about the dialogue. All in all, not a good one, not even by LMN standards.

I live under a rock, and so I was one of the last of my friends to see the highly controversial film "Cuties". I sat through one viewing, and I think that was all I needed to see.

I've honestly seen films on this sort of subject (being a girl on the cusp of womanhood) that have stylistically handled it better, such as the 2014 film "The Fits". "Cuties" is one of those French art films that pushes boundaries for "art" and shock value, constantly hitting us over the head with heavy-handed implications that female innocence in the digital age is dead. The girls in this film, not even in high school yet, curse like sailors and dress inappropriately, an awkward and painful spectacle for the viewer as we sit there watching the main character's slow downfall into competitive perversion. It's vulgar, it's shocking, and yet, by the time it's over, all I was thinking to myself was, "okay, that was REALLY creepy... what else is new?" And I say this because, in an era of TikTok, Instagram, children being given their own cell phone in preschool, iPads in classrooms, none of this sort of thing surprises me anymore. Maybe fifteen years ago the film would have left a bigger impact on me. Now, having been born in 1998 myself and having grown up with this same kind of pressure and exposure to sexuality as a female, I'm just desensitized to this type of thing. The problem with Cuties is that it's telling us something we already knew, all while proposing nothing that can be done to change a tragic trajectory for today's hopeless youth.

If we can even begin to set aside the glaring problems with the choices made in filming Cuties, which is what created much of the controversy in the first place, Cuties would still be a flawed way to send a message. We see the film try to blame the media for its portrayal of women and girls, and yet this media is clearly not for children, so who's exposing them to it? We see that the innocent feminine role models for preteens of yesteryear, like Alex Mack and the Babysitter's Club, have been replaced with promiscuous, filtered adult models - again, not for children, and yet the film seems to focus more on the influence of the media and sexual predators than on the parent's role in protecting their children from bad influences. We see an increasingly digital world that children that age should not have unsupervised access to, and yet the film doesn't really get into this much, either. It seems to blame the way that our society sexualizes women at a younger and younger age, and yet, this is nothing new - in fact, if anything, it's decreased from the "free love" of the 1960's and 1970's, a time back when films like "Valerie and Her Week of Wonders" and "The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane" were all the rage (they'd be scandalous today; back then, they were known as "all in good fun"). We forget that it was only the 1930's when celebrity Loretta Lynn, a fourteen-year-old girl who didn't know what sex even was, married a grown man who forced her to have sex on their honeymoon. She was not alone in this; the age in which minor children could marry in the western world has always been strikingly low up until the past few decades. The sexualitzation of women and girls has always existed. It was just swept under the carpet more often in the past. The message that this is problematic has always been there long before Cuties: we see recent titles like 2018's "The Tale" address how the sexual revolution of the 1970's glossed over a young girl's traumatic experience being groomed and molested by an adult married couple, or 2016's "Neon Demon" showing how a young girl aspiring to be a model pretends to be a grown woman to fit in, facing lecherous sexual predators at every turn... but what sets Cuties apart is that its message that the sexualization of youth in the media is bad doesn't quite know how to propose a solution, while other films indicated cathartic changes that we can make in ourselves as young women and girls in a sexual world. Cuties doesn't dare suggest maybe getting involved with your child's life, looking into what they're accessing on social media or maybe not giving a child that age their own digital device, nor does it suggest knowing better who your children's friends are, or teaching your child to respect themselves enough to be careful - hell, it doesn't even really put much blame on sexual predators, who are the obvious overarching culprit! It blames the media - not the parents, not the predators, not the digital devices - and it's even more problematic to blame the media when the film then goes and gives an overtly sexual and creepy portrayal of its minor child actors for a mainstream viewing audience. Any good that could have come from Cuties was lost there. It indicates that part of the problem is the main character's Islamic household where her parents, new immigrants, don't quite understand the culture they've moved into (theirs is a household of polygamy, neglect and the brink of poverty), but, again, the film doesn't quite dwell enough on this to suggest that this is the main problem, that the main character has no protective role models at home looking out for her. It's the media's fault, it's society's fault, and in the end, young Amy has to seek nostalgia and innocence all on her own, as her mother leaves her for her husband's wedding to a second wife.

Stylistically, Cuties is again forgettable. While not necessarily bland, its soundtrack is nothing special, its cinematography isn't all that groundbreaking, and its actors are good but not great. The film's attempt to touch on so many themes at once: problematic aspects of Islam, cliques and bullying, social media, youth behavioural problems, domestic abuse, polygamy, immigration, poverty, cultural barriers, dance symbolism and so-forth - it's such a jumble of ideas that any coherent message is either totally lost, or never existed to begin with.

Cuties is simply too behind-the-times and clueless to realize that its thematic material is old news, and that you cannot address a subject by skating loosely around it or by doing the very thing - sexualizing children - that you believe is wrong.

While this one has gotten a lot of backlash for having an overweight princess, I think a lot of people are being too harsh on this fairy-tale with a clever spin. "Red Shoes" isn't a perfect film; there is some cringey pop music, the plot is rather predictable, and at times the "body-positive" message feels forced. That said, "Red Shoes" has far more good qualities than flaws. Its characters are adorable and great role models for young and old viewers alike, the animation is beautiful, the story is a lot of fun, and the voice acting was very well-done.

This is also the first "parody" fairy-tale I've seen as an animated film that wasn't crude or vulgar. I never liked that quality about similar films such as the "Shrek" series, which shoehorned in as many crass and lewd adult jokes, belch jokes and sex jokes as it could. "Red Shoes" is able to be witty and funny without being obnoxious or disgusting, which was a nice surprise in this day and age. The romance aspect in "Red Shoes" isn't just romance, either. It's a more profound friendship between two characters who also know how to be resourceful and intelligent on their own, yet they compliment each other at the same time. Another great message for viewers that runs against the grain of the "let's fall in love with some prince I hardly even know" Disney trope - these characters get to know each other first, an in an era of hookup culture and Tindr, promoting the value of friendship and history in a romance is a message that anybody can appreciate.

"Red Shoes" isn't exactly "revolutionary". It's not going to take the world by storm like "Frozen" or "Tangled" did, but it's still a beautiful and fun film that deserves a chance. I knew the backlash it had received about its portrayal of a plus-sized character, but I went into it with an open mind, and I was really surprised with how well the subject of physical appearance was handled. Some viewers have also complained about the ending, that Merlin didn't stay a little green dwarf after being revived by Snow White, but I personally appreciated the change - a conventionally attractive person can still fall in love with a plus-sized person, and there's nothing wrong with that. Merlin was incredibly sweet and kind too, and I'm glad "Red Shoes" portrayed him as such when there's been a neo-feminist undercurrent these days of male characters in films just being portrayed as sleazy creeps with no redeeming qualities.

If you're looking for a film that's got just the right balance of escapism, adventure, fantasy and social commentary without being political or offensive, "Red Shoes" is a good choice. While not groundbreaking, it's a fun story that viewers of all ages can enjoy, and an interesting twist on a classic fairy-tale that still manages to have a few surprises up its sleeve.

The Act is one of the best dramatized crime stories I have seen in a long time for many reasons. First of all, the acting is brilliant. You can literally feel Gypsy's frustration in many of the scenes as she fails to fit in with other girls due to their perception of her illness, as she is made to lie to a CPS worker and the many tense, unsettling moments between her and her mother. Dee Dee's backstory is given, which is equally disturbing, and neighbours and friends of the family are given a lot of screen time, so it's easy to see this as more than just a TV show. The soundtrack choices are well-placed, and the recreations of the Blanchard House, the prison and the home of Nick Godejohn are all spot-on. Stunning visual effects and lighting aid in the conveying of emotion and isolation - many reviewers have complained about the poor lighting during the scenes in the Blanchard home, when in reality, it really was that bad; Dee Dee had taped tinted film up over the windows to block them. There are some brilliant scenes to establish why Gypsy didn't just walk away and leave, such as the scene of Dee Dee lying that Gypsy is 14 years old, and another in which they both watch the stars together while homeless in a park. Gypsy's ambivalence, as well as the abuse she suffers, are truly a jarring viewing experience.

While this series is good, I wouldn't recommend it to those interested in an accurate account of the true story in which it was based upon. This is especially true due to the character of Nick Godejohn, who is portrayed as a poor, simple-minded boy under Gypsy's thumb, some innocent person who got caught up in the throes of love. In reality, there was something dark about Nick from the start. He was a pervert who had been arrested after fondling himself to pornography in a McDonald's restaurant for 9 whole hours (I kid you not), and his parents should have been keeping a better handle on his internet usage and associations, as he was unstable. He had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome (high-functioning autism) but there is still dispute on whether or not his mental capacity was actually hindered by this or not, or if he was just socially awkward. Gypsy herself is portrayed as a malicious, nasty psychopath. In reality she was noted to exhibit very mild sociopathic tendencies mimicked from her own mother, and she has admitted to manipulating Nick, but the series here takes quite a few fictional liberties in the portrayal of their "relationship", and somewhat downplays the extent of the medical abuse that Gypsy suffered and the amount of drugs that she was on.

The Act is also quite a long series, and it leaves a lot to be desired in the final episode. I would have liked to see more of Gypsy's rekindled relationship with her estranged father, more of his own input and memory on Dee Dee and Gypsy, more about Dee Dee and Gypsy's experience with Hurricane Katrina and how this aided in Dee Dee's ability to "lose" Gypsy's records and keep up the lie, and the input from Dee Dee's extended family that she had poisoned her stepmother and neglected her biological mother, as well as the flushing of Dee Dee's ashes down the toilet, as it might have given a better reflection of why Dee Dee's death received more joy than grief. There are scenes which were dragged out in a bizarre way, such as the comic convention scene, which could have been cut back quite a bit, and scenes where Nick's father is bitter towards Gypsy before he even knows that she and Nick have done anything wrong (this is never explained and felt very irrelevant). The series felt much stronger in its initial episodes, whereas after the actual murder, it began to lag and get a bit silly at some points, such as when Nick is portrayed as frequently picking up rocks and keeping a list of things to do such as "remember to feed Gypsy", and Gypsy releasing her two pet guinea pigs outdoors to "set them free" in a very odd display of empathy and childish whimsy that really contradicts the storyline that Gypsy was a cold-blooded manipulator. The final episode also replays the stabbing scene in a very long, drawn-out way which seemed unnecessary considering that it had already been portrayed at one point earlier on, and that repeated flashbacks and mentions of it, as well as imagery of Dee Dee's corpse, had all been shown.

As a drama, The Act is compelling, and viewers who remember films such as the 1970's Stephen King's Carrie and Mommie Dearest (1981) will find that this story explores a disturbing mother-daughter relationship with striking depth and understanding. As a biopic and a series, it could have used some work on detail, accuracy and better use of its allotted time. I did especially love Mel as a character most of all, though. Her caustic demeanour falls away in front of Gypsy in the final episode as the two share a heartfelt, sad moment when Mel realizes how long Gypsy had been lying to her, and when the two realize that if somebody had done something sooner, maybe they could have been connected like some semblance of a family within their close-knit yet tenuous and distant suburban circle. While fictional, Mel and many of the other side characters serve as some of The Act's best character development.

Growing up with the 1980's Smurfs cartoon as reruns, and having been a younger teenager when the first two live-action Smurfs films were released (which creeped me out at the time), I went into this one not really knowing what to expect. While this film's CGI animation might not necessarily suit it well, and there were a few cringey things such as the thumping electronic background music and the "smurf selfie" scene which will no doubt become horribly dated a few years from now, Smurfs: the Lost Village really isn't too bad. Cutting back on the bizarre animated/live action mash-ups and vulgar adult humour of the latter two released films, this new Smurfs film stands on its own as a more kid-friendly tale with a positive girl power message (and luckily it doesn't wallow in the politically-charged neo-feminism of our time, it just promotes celebrating our differences and embracing who we are as individuals), and it's one which adults who grew up with the 1980's cartoon can still enjoy for nostalgia's sake. There are plenty of funny slapstick moments throughout without crossing the line into serious violence or crudeness, and new characters are introduced while still retaining the classic ones we all know and love, like Brainy Smurf, Clumsy Smurf and of course Papa Smurf. Talented and distinctive voice actors help to further bring these characters to life with a wide array of memorable phrases and quotes.

One thing this film does very well is that it dumped the over-excessive creepiness of the villain Gargamel, which had been something from the first two Smurfs live action films which had never made any sense. In the first two films he is insanely ugly to the point of just being completely nonsensical, and he comes off almost as some sort of pervert. In Smurfs: the Lost Village, the evil yet pathetically lovable wizard and his mangy cat are back with much more of the comedy and charm that they had in the 1980's cartoon and comic books, but updated slightly for a modern audience. While he doesn't have any particular amount of depth or any redeeming moment as a villain beyond just being the needed villain, and his allies from the animated series such as Scruple (his bratty but adorable apprentice who I was kind of hoping to see on the big screen) are not featured, he's still a fun character and Azrael the cat and Monty the vulture also provide plenty of sarcastic/dopey humour throughout. These villains are obvious bad guys, but not so sinister so as to frighten or offend anybody. These animated smurfs also aren't as off-putting as those animated in the earlier films; in the earlier films they looked like some sort of chilling puppets with weirdly realistic eyes and features (my little brother had been terrified of them back in my teenage years when the two live-action films had first hit the scene) but there's much more of a cartoon quality to these newer CGI smurfs, and they're more cute and endearing. It was nice to see Smurfette as more than just a ditz or a sex symbol, and to see her being a positive role model for young girls through her resourcefulness and kindness more than anything else. The film teaches viewers to embrace their unique personality and qualities and to do the right thing, and albeit a little preachy, it's still a great family film with good messages and nothing too inappropriate or stupid. I hope it might inspire a sequel or TV spin-off or something in the same vein of childish innocence and cheerfulness, which would be a welcome light in the fog of Keeping Up With the Kardashians, Rick & Morty and Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. I'm definitely not a crude humour fan or a fan of modern television, so this film gives me hope that there's still good family-friendly content out there for a modern mainstream audience.

The sequence of events and reasoning behind them in this film are up for debate, as has often been the case ever since September the 11th, 2001. Moore is good at striking people emotionally, and without even showing that iconic image of the burning towers that we've all seen before, he manages to really hit home, not in a peachy "we're still proud, strong, good ol' USA" way, but in a surprisingly tasteful and timely way without stooping to exploitation, gore or offensive jokes. I was also very surprised to learn that Moore lost a friend in the Twin Towers that day. Not to be an attention wh*ore, but my family was heavily affected by 9/11 and my uncle lost a lot of good friends that day, so I'm glad to see that Moore has retained a certain level of compassion and seriousness for the many people who lost their lives or lost loved ones in the Pentagon and World Trade Center. He also raises a good point about the "War on Terror", which my dad was deployed into back when I was ten years old - is it worth it to pursue justice if we go about it by killing innocent people? Why have we left such a startling amount of "collateral damage" in Iraq while hunting down one specific terrorist group? Isn't it all rather futile and hypocritical of our country to destroy another that didn't even have anything to do with 9/11 in the first place?

Though this film does raise many good points and gets the ball rolling on some genuine discussion on a taboo subject, I didn't like the way in which some scenes were so heavily taken out of context, especially those regarding Bush. No, I'm not a Bush supporter, I'm Canadian anyway, I simply think that he was unprepared for such a devastating blow to the nation and he didn't know what to do. If somebody told me that the nation was under attack and I was President, I might have acted in a very similar manner. He was also in the presence of elementary school children at the time of hearing the news. I mean, what was he supposed to do, jump up and announce, "sorry kids, gotta run, some guys in planes just killed off 3,000 innocent citizens! Ciao, and don't forget to vote!" Give me a break. My guess is he didn't want to frighten the general public. There were really no plans to handle 9/11 or the bombing of such tall buildings at the time, and plans for terrorist attacks back then were geared more towards older, less organized concepts of it. Moore cherry-picks video clips of Bush "being lazy" (same could be said about Trump, Obama, Trudeau, any politician really, it's good PR to be frequently recorded having fun like a "normal guy" and not necessarily a sign of not doing any work) and spins together a story of a man who just didn't give a damn about terrorism and not only acted in negligence, but also outright took advantage of the attacks for political/financial gain. Some of this is indeed true as it presented the perfect opportunity for a war and money to be made on military involvement, but I still don't buy that Bush was an evil monster, nor do I believe that he acted alone on this stuff. It's just what countries do. They use tragedy as an excuse to cause more tragedy, perpetuating a bloody, violent cycle. I feel though like Moore opted to dwell so much on Bush that he was losing sight of the real message he was trying to get at, and a project that starts off as ambitious and important quickly dissolves into a mess of varying themes and frankly bizarre cutaway scenes. He acts very immature and obnoxious throughout, and repeatedly tries to make 9/11 all about him by dragging it back to the irrelevant topic of his obsession, his small Colorado childhood town in an economic depression. What does this have to do with 9/11 (if anything)? He spends more time rambling on about himself than about the teens being recruited by vultures-er, soldiers, in the shopping malls and community centers. What begins as a compassionate tribute to the victims of this terrible attack, soon becomes just another opportunity for Moore to don his tinfoil hat and ride his high horse off into the sunset, and it brought me to wonder whether this film was really about the events of September the 11th, or was it just about personal anger towards the malaise and bitterness of modern America? It's definitely subjective and up for debate, so while there's a lot of this film I found unfair and heavily biased, I can't bring myself to hate it because love it or loathe it, it's one of the most important nonfiction films of our time, not necessarily because it's true but because it will get us all thinking about our own feelings and opinions towards that horrible day and what 9/11 and terrorism in general means to us - not as Americans, but as human beings.

Rose Red often gets laughed at among horror fans for downplaying the gore, sex and profanity of many other Stephen King works, but if you love a good, clean and slow-burning supernatural ghost tour with plenty of mystery, friendship and psychic powers, you'll love this three-part exploration of a giant haunted house. Upon my first viewing, I was a little put-off by the character of Annie Wheaton, an autistic fifteen-year-old portrayed as having the mental capacity of a four-year-old at best. Contrary to popular belief, even non-verbal people on the autism spectrum are just as intelligent as anybody else. It's not a mental deficiency. That being said, considering that this miniseries was created in 2002, the fact that it even acknowledges autism at all was quite a big step, as the topic was largely taboo. The overweight mama's-boy character Emery also breaks the politically correct mold of television by insulting Annie, calling her a retard and a burden, giving viewers a taste of what a lot of autistic teenagers begin facing once they pass the age of childhood. Stephen King might be a horror writer, but he knows how to tackle controversial issues with a lot of common sense.

All that aside, Rose Red is, much like Stephen King's It and Kingdom Hospital, a very quirky tale of friendship (not to get too sappy but it's true), as well as a supernatural spook-hunt. However I was a little disappointed that many of its most admirable characters like Nick and Pam were killed off as the show progressed, something that seemed somewhat bizarre for King's usual material. Rose Red also gives a bit of a history lesson, including the shameless racism and violence the police of the early 1900's display towards Sukeena, the misogyny of Ellen Rimbaur's husband and of course, the unsafe work standards at the time. This allows for a lot of deep plot development, however it begins to get a little redundant as time goes by. Scenes and stories get repeated frequently. We also get a lot of recycled Stephen King plot devices, such as Annie making a rain of stones fall upon her neighbour's house (his novel Carrie), which might annoy some longtime fans of his work.

One of the things that makes Rose Red so worthwhile is of course the amount of striking detail that went into its set. The house itself is incredibly detailed, with everything from a tiny dollhouse embedded in the wall to decrepit stone fountains. The Seattle scenery offers a nice change from King's typical Maine location, and characters like Mrs. Waterman (Emery's humiliating, obese mother) and Professor Carl Miller offer a dose of comic relief at the same time. The dialogue can be a bit corny at times like something akin to a cheesy sitcom, but overall it's very well-done.

All in all, I'd definitely recommend Rose Red. It also features actors like Julian Sands from "The Killing Fields" and Kimberly Brown from "Bringing Down the House", who you'll definitely not want to miss.

Miyzaki's films are famous the world over for their use of quirky fantasy elements, breathtaking animation tactics and environmental themes. It's all well and good to spread a strong message against consumerism and pollution and all that with cutesy little animals and children, but I personally find that his most effective pictures are the ones grounded in reality.

Of course, for the main character of The Wind Rises, he prefers not to be grounded in reality, and he has some pretty trippy dreams sometimes about building a spectacular aircraft, but in the meantime he's studying to be an aeronautical engineer. Jiro has imagined all his life that he'll work with planes, and his friend Caproni, an Italian engineer who visits him in his dreams, guides him to designing planes instead of flying them because of his poor vision. Jiro gets employed by Mitsubishi, and throughout the film he meets many incredible friends, from his dwarfish boss with a bad temper, to a Soviet spy who fled Germany because he disapproves of Hitler's cruel tactics and the actions of the Nazis. He also meets Nahoko, a young girl with tuberculosis who later becomes his devoted wife. Unfortunately the war soon collides with Jiro's dreams, resulting in his designs being used for horror rather than peace.

I've heard many complaints about this film, specifically that it doesn't address Jiro in a more negative light for designing the planes in the first place. Because Studio Ghibli creates films targeted mostly towards children at this point though, I'd hardly think it appropriate for the production company to be showing fully the diabolical madness of WWII or Japan's treatment of China at the time. Did Jiro ever want his plane designs used for evil? I highly doubt that was the man's intention, although he was very naive. Weren't most people? WWII was hell on earth back then, and nobody wanted to think the worst of each other. Miyzaki tackles a touchy subject very effectively, sharing with viewers that yes, this did happen, but instead of creating a graphic and gory war film and focusing purely on Kamikaze suicide missions, he shares the life of an engineer with a dream, using nostalgic piano melodies and Italian-esque accordion tunes to set the scene, as well as colourful animation techniques that don't rely too heavily on fancy effects to be good. Like his earlier "Grave of the Fireflies", this film is real and incredible, without trying to inject any preachy messages about humanity destroying the earth. It's about real people, and after a while the characters all start to feel almost like old friends.

My best friend sort of coerced me into watching this, telling me what an amazing and sweet romantic comedy it was. I went over to her place to see it, and it turned out to be neither romantic nor funny in the least, just really bizarre and gross. We've got an old man who brags about his escapades in the bedroom with a camel, a border collie getting it on with a man, a woman putting her hand in dog crap in the garden, and that's just the beginning. Was that the actress who played Danielle Atron on the children's TV show 'The Secret World of Alex Mack' grabbing the crotch of the high school guy? Was the blond girl seriously just talking about having a threesome when she was in the middle of a shopping mall surrounded by people? I really didn't find any of this stuff funny. It was nothing but vulgar jokes about bestiality and sex and trans-gendered people, and a bunch of horny perverts trashing a beach scene. More than anything else, it was just very awkward and predictable, making it incredibly boring. For the right audience I'm sure it would be appreciated, but if weird fetish stuff and crude humour isn't your thing, I'd avoid this at all costs. I almost want to buy the DVD just so I can burn it in a massive backyard bonfire.

I'm a huge fan of the 1990's TV film of "It", especially for its aesthetics and soundtrack, but it left out a lot of content from the original novel, leaving me confused when I first saw it at the age of 12. This remake, or perhaps actually a "re-adaptation", is certainly very timely, what with "Stranger Things" becoming so huge with pretentious hipsters everywhere. I'm still not sure it hits the "scary" factor very well, especially without Tim Curry's tremendous acting, but it's certainly creepy. It's not nostalgic though, nor does it retain much of the original novel, including the 50's setting, changed to the 80's to obviously market itself with "Stranger Things" and "The Goonies".

My problem with this new adaptation of "It" is that it's addled with CGI and jump scares, neither of which add to its nostalgic appeal. At the risk of sounding like a film snob, if you're trying to make a film set decades before this era, you don't use CGI at all if you can avoid it, unless you really know how to camouflage it. The constant profanity did nothing for the story either, it only gave the false illusion of being edgy. Yes, the book had profanity, but King knew where to draw the line and keep the perfect balance of immature vulgarity and true friendship. The sheer level of nerdiness here made me cringe, unlike the TV movie which had genuine friendships and sweet moments of love and joy amidst the horror, just like King's novel. Did one of those boys seriously just say "Get me my bifocals, I hid them in my second fanny pack"? What the hell kind of child wears bifocals? Why not just rename him Poindexter while they're at it? The kids in the book and the miniseries were never this obnoxiously dorky. And what's with all this New Kids on the Block stuff? There was a scene in which for no apparent reason all these close-ups of NKOTB posters pop up on-screen. Why? Just because earlier in the film a kid had been listening to that music? It made no sense! We get loads of terrible one liners from Richie comparing the blood in the sewers to "period blood" (lovely, eh?) and trust me, no way does any thirteen-year-old talk like this. All kids at that age swear and tell fart jokes and stuff, but even they have their limits.

Mike is only added as an afterthought, which seems borderline offensive, as if they only added him as a token minority whereas in the book and film he was such a complex, central character. He had a strong bond with his father that's totally absent from this film. Stan is unlikable, and the newly revamped Pennywise the Clown has teeth that could rival the most inbred hillbilly, and the most scary thing he seems to be able to do is hop around like some kind of wino. Uh yeah, real "spooky", I'm shaking in my boots.

Then we have the film's complete disregard for the friendship, the glue that holds the story together. Killing and gore and sex and violence and swearing is not what horror is about, it's about the darker side of life, and this film only portrays it in a cheesy slasher film type of way. I'm not trying to sound preachy, but where's the love and friendship between the characters? When it is there (which isn't very often) it feels forced. In the old miniseries, it felt authentic and true, and the kids were actually portrayed as kids, not young adults. This new film is completely void of the book's special qualities such as the "hi-ho Silver!" thing and Eddie's "battery acid" line. The film just doesn't have the stunning scenery that the miniseries had, either. The miniseries had an actual gothic revival pump house as the sewer building (the Buntzen Hydroelectric Station of British Columbia), and it was creepy and nostalgic and absolutely the perfect choice. It had nailed down the industrial small town in an economic slump kind of look perfectly, too. This film looks too clean for that, with CGI used in all the wrong places to create what looks like fake looking stage sets.

This film isn't completely terrible. It passes the time, but the only thing it has going for it is that the director thinks he has hit some 80's vibe gold mine when in reality it just looked like a bad video game full of childish jump scares. I was hoping it might be more like the 2012 film Sinister, a genuinely frightening and timeless boogeyman that leaves a subtle unsettling presence wherever it goes, but no, it just looked cheap and lazy, an obvious cash grab that's being WAY overhyped. A 7.5/10 rating, are you kidding me? Even King's 1995 notoriously bad film The Mangler was better than this! It's like with good marketing, this new film was able to pull the wool over everybody's eyes and fool them into thinking it was a classic masterpiece.

In 2016, two films about the late 1970's Florida newscaster Christine Chubbuck were released: this one, which is a nonfiction documentary, and another, which is more of a historical drama. It's surprising to me that the latter of the two was much better. The dramatization captured not only the Seventies psychedelic vibe very well with its muted yellow colours and its placement of fashion and music, but its portrayal of Christine herself was also more realistic. I don't know why the documentary was made. On the positive side, it points out that there really is no reason to seek out the gory tape of Chubbuck's tragic death other than for sadists to get off on, or for the public to turn into a morbid curiosity. It also gives viewers the chance to hear opinions from Steve Newman (WXLT's TV weatherman and close friend of Christine's) who talks more about Christine's life and personality than the actual suicide itself.

Unfortunately 'Kate Plays Christine' comes off largely as a vanity project, focused less on Chubbuck herself and more on hipster-esque actress Kate Lyn Sheil, who looks absolutely nothing like Christine at all, anyway. Her voice is extremely different than Christine's, her eyes are blue instead of brown, and her hair is different. This two-hour documentary mostly features Kate making a ridiculous, self-indulgent spectacle by dressing up as what could only be described as a mannequin version of Chubbuck, with a fake spray tan, plastic-looking wig that keeps falling off, coloured contact lenses and fashions that are supposed to look like they're from the era but obviously never were. On top of that she acts like a nosy stalker, pestering Florida locals with morbid questions of suicide and even going into the gun shop where Cristine herself bought the handgun that did the deed back in 1974, dressed up as Christine with the purpose of buying a gun. The whole display, especially when she walks into what appears to be Chubbuck's final place of residence and creeps around, was rather tasteless. We also get badly recreated scenes of Christine's life, and while most of the background actors were quite good, Kate herself sounded worse than the drama productions that my own local high school does, speaking in a forced monotone that had me laughing when I should have been upset with Christine's plight.

While the dramatization film also released this year starring Rebecca Hall at least dealt with the subject matter in a respectful manner, 'Kate Plays Christine' just felt like a mocking, distasteful display of rubbernecking and dredging up a story that those involved seem to want to let rest in peace.