Login
Home
189 Lists
2425 Reviews
CollectionsYou'd think perhaps from the title that the film wouldn't be as good as it turned out to be. Based on Clive Barker's excellent, intelligent and very chilling book, Candyman is a very good film.
The production values are great and very stylish. The cinematography is beautiful, and the setting and lighting is suitably atmospheric. The atmosphere also really helps, and the more disturbing bits do not thankfully come across as laughable or fake, thanks to the atmosphere and other factors it is genuinely chilling. Phillip Glass's hypnotic and goosebump-inducing score is also very effective, Bernard Rose directs brilliantly, the story is always gripping with Candyman's origins especially well done the dialogue is thought-provoking, intelligent and fits each scene accordingly.
The film is a good length and goes at a well-judged pace. The performances are impressive too, Virginia Madsen is simply terrific in a difficult role while Tony Todd is absolutely terrifying down from his posture to his voice. In fact, for me the only real downside was the ending, it was a sort of "it's not over" ending, and for me(I may be biased as I am not a fan of this type of ending) it felt tacky. In conclusion, an atmospheric horror film that delivers on pretty much every level. 8/10 Bethany Cox
Candyman review
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:52
(A review of Candyman)
0 comments, Reply to this entry
'Friday the 13th' hits the Big Apple
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:40
(A review of Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan)'Friday the 13th' may have been panned by critics when first released but since then it is one of the most famous and influential horror films, the franchise containing one of horror's most iconic villains. The film is popular enough to become a franchise and spawn several sequels of varying quality and generally inferior to the one that started it all off.
'Jason Takes Manhattan', the seventh sequel and the eight film in the series, is one of the lowest rated 'Friday the 13th' films on IMDb. Apart from a couple of interest points, personally have to agree with those who consider 'Jason Takes Manhattan' one of the series' weakest (whether it's the very worst is debatable). It's not terrible and not quite as bad as some have said, but it is lacking in a lot of areas.
There are merits here. When it comes to the photography, 'Jason Takes Manhattan' is a strong contender for the best shot 'Friday the 13th' film, very stylish and crisp with a lot of atmosphere.
Regarding the music, the music has always been one of the best things consistently, that is the case here, once again being hauntingly eerie and quite catchy even.
Kane Hodder returns as Jason and does a valiant job, and very nearly is as spine chilling as he was in the previous film (the make-up lets him down though but the performance itself is spot on). A couple of the deaths are memorable.
It was also nice to have a change in location, the most interesting thing of 'Jason Takes Manhattan' and what makes it stand out among the rest in this regard.
However, 'Jason Takes Manhattan' has a lot of severe drawbacks. And no, the misleading misnomer of the film's title, considering there is too little of Manhattan and it takes too long to get there, is actually the least of its problems. Of the acting the only good performance comes from Hodder, everybody else is either irritating or with the range of a broomstick, meaning the film is one of the series' worst acted.
The dialogue also makes the film one of the series' worst-written, not just crude, tonally muddled and simplistic but sense is pretty much neglected. The stereotypical characters are the most bland and annoying ones of the series, with the most illogical and stupidest decision making. Am aware that these assets have rarely been strengths in the 'Friday the 13th' films, but not to this extent in comparison to the previous films.
Storytelling is also not great to put it mildly. It takes silliness and senselessness to extreme breaking point, the concept poses a lot of confusion and errors in continuity and too much of the film is too ridiculous to even be entertained by it let alone take seriously. The climax is one of the series' most confusing (incoherent even), head-scratching and laziest. One also feels every minute of the rather too long length, due to the story being a stale rehash pretty much that feels tired.
Make-up and effects are subpar, Jason looks both cheap and goofy, none of the unsettling gruesomeness of 'The New Blood'. Like that film, The humour is more goofy and annoying than tongue-in-cheek and witty (a big problem considering the over-reliance on it, some of the humour felt unintentional too), there is a real shortage of suspense, far too tame scares and the creativity and creepiness of the death scenes are wildly variable and even the best of them are nowhere near close to being on par with the series' most memorable.
Overall, not terrible but rather lacklustre. 4/10 Bethany Cox
'Jason Takes Manhattan', the seventh sequel and the eight film in the series, is one of the lowest rated 'Friday the 13th' films on IMDb. Apart from a couple of interest points, personally have to agree with those who consider 'Jason Takes Manhattan' one of the series' weakest (whether it's the very worst is debatable). It's not terrible and not quite as bad as some have said, but it is lacking in a lot of areas.
There are merits here. When it comes to the photography, 'Jason Takes Manhattan' is a strong contender for the best shot 'Friday the 13th' film, very stylish and crisp with a lot of atmosphere.
Regarding the music, the music has always been one of the best things consistently, that is the case here, once again being hauntingly eerie and quite catchy even.
Kane Hodder returns as Jason and does a valiant job, and very nearly is as spine chilling as he was in the previous film (the make-up lets him down though but the performance itself is spot on). A couple of the deaths are memorable.
It was also nice to have a change in location, the most interesting thing of 'Jason Takes Manhattan' and what makes it stand out among the rest in this regard.
However, 'Jason Takes Manhattan' has a lot of severe drawbacks. And no, the misleading misnomer of the film's title, considering there is too little of Manhattan and it takes too long to get there, is actually the least of its problems. Of the acting the only good performance comes from Hodder, everybody else is either irritating or with the range of a broomstick, meaning the film is one of the series' worst acted.
The dialogue also makes the film one of the series' worst-written, not just crude, tonally muddled and simplistic but sense is pretty much neglected. The stereotypical characters are the most bland and annoying ones of the series, with the most illogical and stupidest decision making. Am aware that these assets have rarely been strengths in the 'Friday the 13th' films, but not to this extent in comparison to the previous films.
Storytelling is also not great to put it mildly. It takes silliness and senselessness to extreme breaking point, the concept poses a lot of confusion and errors in continuity and too much of the film is too ridiculous to even be entertained by it let alone take seriously. The climax is one of the series' most confusing (incoherent even), head-scratching and laziest. One also feels every minute of the rather too long length, due to the story being a stale rehash pretty much that feels tired.
Make-up and effects are subpar, Jason looks both cheap and goofy, none of the unsettling gruesomeness of 'The New Blood'. Like that film, The humour is more goofy and annoying than tongue-in-cheek and witty (a big problem considering the over-reliance on it, some of the humour felt unintentional too), there is a real shortage of suspense, far too tame scares and the creativity and creepiness of the death scenes are wildly variable and even the best of them are nowhere near close to being on par with the series' most memorable.
Overall, not terrible but rather lacklustre. 4/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood review
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:38
(A review of Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood)'Friday the 13th' may have been panned by critics when first released but since then it is one of the most famous and influential horror films, the franchise containing one of horror's most iconic villains. The film is popular enough to become a franchise and spawn several sequels of varying quality and generally inferior to the one that started it all off.
'The New Blood', the seventh instalment, is not among the best films in the series from personal opinion, though far from awful. It does have good things and a couple of interest points, but there is the general sense that things and the concept were becoming half-hearted and stale. Not sure as to whether 'The New Blood' is the worst film in the series as some critics and fans have said it to be.
As aforementioned, 'The New Blood' has strengths. The make-up effects are genuinely gruesome and frightening and the telekinetic effects are surprisingly good. The music score once again is hauntingly eerie and there are a couple of deaths that are well done, the sleeping bag one is the best one and not just one of the film's highlights but also one of the best death scenes to me of the whole series.
Kane Hodder sends chills down the spine as Jason. The interest point of 'The New Blood' is the supernatural, telekinetic element, the one thing that stops the film from being severely fatigued and from it being a complete retread. It is a very strange idea and doesn't feel like it entirely belongs within the film, but it's pretty clever.
However, Lar Park-Lincoln is fairly overwrought in places, though she does have good moments especially with Hodder, and the rest of the acting is nothing to write about. Their characters are hard to care for, due to them being so sketchy and in a couple of cases grating. The dialogue continues to be crude and simplistic. None of these were strengths anyway in the 'Friday the 13th' series ('Jason Lives' is an exception), but for all 'The New Blood' is one of the worse-faring cases.
Pacing feels rushed in the telling of the story, which can feel jumpy, and dull because it's all so bloodless. The humour is more goofy and annoying than tongue-in-cheek and witty, there is a real shortage of suspense, far too tame scares (and it's not just because the film is very un-gory, the only one that shocks is the un-masking) and the deaths have been far more imaginative and creepy elsewhere in the series, with one exception. The ending is ridiculous and over-extended.
On the whole, lacklustre but not a waste of time. 4/10 Bethany Cox
'The New Blood', the seventh instalment, is not among the best films in the series from personal opinion, though far from awful. It does have good things and a couple of interest points, but there is the general sense that things and the concept were becoming half-hearted and stale. Not sure as to whether 'The New Blood' is the worst film in the series as some critics and fans have said it to be.
As aforementioned, 'The New Blood' has strengths. The make-up effects are genuinely gruesome and frightening and the telekinetic effects are surprisingly good. The music score once again is hauntingly eerie and there are a couple of deaths that are well done, the sleeping bag one is the best one and not just one of the film's highlights but also one of the best death scenes to me of the whole series.
Kane Hodder sends chills down the spine as Jason. The interest point of 'The New Blood' is the supernatural, telekinetic element, the one thing that stops the film from being severely fatigued and from it being a complete retread. It is a very strange idea and doesn't feel like it entirely belongs within the film, but it's pretty clever.
However, Lar Park-Lincoln is fairly overwrought in places, though she does have good moments especially with Hodder, and the rest of the acting is nothing to write about. Their characters are hard to care for, due to them being so sketchy and in a couple of cases grating. The dialogue continues to be crude and simplistic. None of these were strengths anyway in the 'Friday the 13th' series ('Jason Lives' is an exception), but for all 'The New Blood' is one of the worse-faring cases.
Pacing feels rushed in the telling of the story, which can feel jumpy, and dull because it's all so bloodless. The humour is more goofy and annoying than tongue-in-cheek and witty, there is a real shortage of suspense, far too tame scares (and it's not just because the film is very un-gory, the only one that shocks is the un-masking) and the deaths have been far more imaginative and creepy elsewhere in the series, with one exception. The ending is ridiculous and over-extended.
On the whole, lacklustre but not a waste of time. 4/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Jason Voorhees rises again
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:34
(A review of Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives)'Friday the 13th' may have been panned by critics when first released but since then it is one of the most famous and influential horror films, the franchise containing one of horror's most iconic villains. The film is popular enough to become a franchise and spawn several sequels of varying quality and generally inferior to the one that started it all off.
People have cited 'Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives' as one of the best of the 'Friday the 13th' films. Having re-watched it since saying in my review for the fourth film that 'The Final Chapter' should have been the last, actually the film was much better on re-watch. While far from perfect, it is agreed that it is one of the series' better ones, perhaps the best since the second film and the best post-'The Final Chapter' instalment. Wouldn't go as far to say it's the very best though.
Starting with the strengths, 'Jason Lives' starts off incredibly well. The opening is creepy and there is also a witty James Bond parody credits sequence that one does not expect in a 'Friday the 13th' film. It is a highly atmospheric and stylish film visually, while not having the great effects and make-up work of the previous film 'Jason Lives' is still one of the best looking films in the series. The music is suitably haunting.
'Jason Lives' surprisingly is one of the better acted 'Friday the 13th' films and has some characters one cares for (especially Tommy) when they are not making illogical or stupid decisions. Thom Matthews is the most conflicted of the actors playing Tommy, while Jennifer Cooke has allure and CJ Graham has an unnerving presence when he is not made to act goofy.
There are some darkly funny moments, the deaths (not an overload this time like 'A New Beginning') are inventively elaborate, there is some creepiness and the pace generally cracks like a whip, 'Jason Lives' is certainly not dull.
However, the tone of 'Jason Lives' is rather unbalanced. There is too much of an emphasis on the humour, and while there are funny moments others are rather cheesy and stupid. While there is creepiness, the suspense in between is not enough and likewise with the scares, which were also pretty tame this time round.
Namely because there are some unintentionally goofy moments with how people are made to act (including Jason) and the writing-a-whole-novel-worth list of goofs. Some of the pacing is rushed, especially towards the end. The dialogue continues to evoke a constant feel of toe-curling cringe.
Overall, a resurrection worth checking out. 6/10 Bethany Cox
People have cited 'Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives' as one of the best of the 'Friday the 13th' films. Having re-watched it since saying in my review for the fourth film that 'The Final Chapter' should have been the last, actually the film was much better on re-watch. While far from perfect, it is agreed that it is one of the series' better ones, perhaps the best since the second film and the best post-'The Final Chapter' instalment. Wouldn't go as far to say it's the very best though.
Starting with the strengths, 'Jason Lives' starts off incredibly well. The opening is creepy and there is also a witty James Bond parody credits sequence that one does not expect in a 'Friday the 13th' film. It is a highly atmospheric and stylish film visually, while not having the great effects and make-up work of the previous film 'Jason Lives' is still one of the best looking films in the series. The music is suitably haunting.
'Jason Lives' surprisingly is one of the better acted 'Friday the 13th' films and has some characters one cares for (especially Tommy) when they are not making illogical or stupid decisions. Thom Matthews is the most conflicted of the actors playing Tommy, while Jennifer Cooke has allure and CJ Graham has an unnerving presence when he is not made to act goofy.
There are some darkly funny moments, the deaths (not an overload this time like 'A New Beginning') are inventively elaborate, there is some creepiness and the pace generally cracks like a whip, 'Jason Lives' is certainly not dull.
However, the tone of 'Jason Lives' is rather unbalanced. There is too much of an emphasis on the humour, and while there are funny moments others are rather cheesy and stupid. While there is creepiness, the suspense in between is not enough and likewise with the scares, which were also pretty tame this time round.
Namely because there are some unintentionally goofy moments with how people are made to act (including Jason) and the writing-a-whole-novel-worth list of goofs. Some of the pacing is rushed, especially towards the end. The dialogue continues to evoke a constant feel of toe-curling cringe.
Overall, a resurrection worth checking out. 6/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Not the final chapter but should have been
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:28
(A review of Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter)'Friday the 13th' may have been panned by critics when first released but since then it is one of the most famous and influential horror films, the franchise containing one of horror's most iconic villains. The film is popular enough to become a franchise and spawn several sequels of varying quality and generally inferior to the one that started it all of.
Liked the first two 'Friday the 13th' films, despite not exactly considering them great. Had mixed feelings on the third film, but it is one of the more watchable follow-ups. This fourth instalment for me is the second best of the sequels, and although one knows that it was not the 'Final Chapter', the general consensus is that it should have been and that there was no need for the rest. Have to completely agree with this, to me 'Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter' was the last average and above of the series.
It may not be a great film, neither were the previous three. The story is paper thin and there is not much new. Again, while actually the best acted film of the whole series, some of the acting is far from what one would call good.
The dialogue, as can be expected (the 'Friday the 13th' films are not to be seen for the script), is awfully crude, cheesy and simplistic, and most of the characters are as dim-witted and underdeveloped as ever (though other sequels did this aspect far worse). There is some unintentional humour here and there that dissipates at times the generally very well done atmosphere.
However, there are three performances that are actually the best of the whole series. Corey Feldman in his prime is appealing, showing that it was a shame that his personal life went as down the toilet in the way that it did since. Crispin Glover is lots of fun in his role and Ted White is one of the scariest Jasons.
Visually, 'Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter' has grit and professionalism and the effects and make-up are simply terrific and steal the show even more than Jason. There is plenty of suspense and tension that was missing in the third film, with a return to deaths and moments that are creative and unsettling. The film contains the best ending of the series, certainly of the sequels, truly nightmarish. There is far less padding too.
Overall, decent, one of the series' best and the last one to be average or above. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Liked the first two 'Friday the 13th' films, despite not exactly considering them great. Had mixed feelings on the third film, but it is one of the more watchable follow-ups. This fourth instalment for me is the second best of the sequels, and although one knows that it was not the 'Final Chapter', the general consensus is that it should have been and that there was no need for the rest. Have to completely agree with this, to me 'Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter' was the last average and above of the series.
It may not be a great film, neither were the previous three. The story is paper thin and there is not much new. Again, while actually the best acted film of the whole series, some of the acting is far from what one would call good.
The dialogue, as can be expected (the 'Friday the 13th' films are not to be seen for the script), is awfully crude, cheesy and simplistic, and most of the characters are as dim-witted and underdeveloped as ever (though other sequels did this aspect far worse). There is some unintentional humour here and there that dissipates at times the generally very well done atmosphere.
However, there are three performances that are actually the best of the whole series. Corey Feldman in his prime is appealing, showing that it was a shame that his personal life went as down the toilet in the way that it did since. Crispin Glover is lots of fun in his role and Ted White is one of the scariest Jasons.
Visually, 'Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter' has grit and professionalism and the effects and make-up are simply terrific and steal the show even more than Jason. There is plenty of suspense and tension that was missing in the third film, with a return to deaths and moments that are creative and unsettling. The film contains the best ending of the series, certainly of the sequels, truly nightmarish. There is far less padding too.
Overall, decent, one of the series' best and the last one to be average or above. 6/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Lots of blood, not enough terror
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:24
(A review of Friday the 13th Part 3)'Friday the 13th' may have been panned by critics when first released but since then it is one of the most famous and influential horror films, the franchise containing one of horror's most iconic villains. The film is popular enough to become a franchise and spawn several sequels of varying quality and generally inferior to the one that started it all of.
Liked the first two 'Friday the 13th' films, despite not exactly considering them great, had a very mixed view on this. 'Friday the 13th Part III' leaves a lot to be desired but is it a terrible film? No. It does contain a lot of the faults that the first two films did and makes more without having enough of what made them work.
The music score is still eerie and there are a couple of clever death scenes and unsettling moments. There are two halfway decent performances, a quite endearing Dana Kimmell who is also the most expressive of the actors and thankfully creepy Richard Brooker.
It's also interesting for being the first film to introduce Jason's famous look. 'Friday the 13th Part III' doesn't have too crude visually, actually having some grit and professionalism.
However, the rest of the acting is mostly awful and strains to even strain mediocre at best. Their characters are dim-witted stereotypes that the film tries to develop not so successfully at times through scenes that don't go very far. The script is cheesy and simplistic and the 3D effects were pointless and generally cheap-looking, even for the 80s.
Story is not much better, with lots of camp and not enough suspense. The deaths generally are not as creative, there is too much padding and the ending is just weird and not in a good way.
Overall, far from bad but far from good too. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Liked the first two 'Friday the 13th' films, despite not exactly considering them great, had a very mixed view on this. 'Friday the 13th Part III' leaves a lot to be desired but is it a terrible film? No. It does contain a lot of the faults that the first two films did and makes more without having enough of what made them work.
The music score is still eerie and there are a couple of clever death scenes and unsettling moments. There are two halfway decent performances, a quite endearing Dana Kimmell who is also the most expressive of the actors and thankfully creepy Richard Brooker.
It's also interesting for being the first film to introduce Jason's famous look. 'Friday the 13th Part III' doesn't have too crude visually, actually having some grit and professionalism.
However, the rest of the acting is mostly awful and strains to even strain mediocre at best. Their characters are dim-witted stereotypes that the film tries to develop not so successfully at times through scenes that don't go very far. The script is cheesy and simplistic and the 3D effects were pointless and generally cheap-looking, even for the 80s.
Story is not much better, with lots of camp and not enough suspense. The deaths generally are not as creative, there is too much padding and the ending is just weird and not in a good way.
Overall, far from bad but far from good too. 5/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Introducing Jason
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:21
(A review of Friday the 13th Part 2)'Friday the 13th' may have been panned by critics when first released but since then it is one of the most famous and influential horror films, the franchise containing one of horror's most iconic villains. The film is popular enough to become a franchise and spawn several sequels of varying quality and generally inferior to the one that started it all of.
Of the sequels, 'Friday the 13th Part 2' is one of the better ones easily and one of the few instalments to be as good, even on par. It's not perfect, it's not what one would call great. It does however achieve its primary goals well, it is scary and it is fun. Plus it introduces Jason Voorhees as the antagonist, so it is an important sequel in the series in this respect.
Like the first 'Friday the 13th', 'Friday the 13th Part 2' is far from the best when it comes to acting. The exceptions are appealing Amy Steel and a truly freaky Warrington Gillette. Everybody else ranges from average to dead-end.
Nor is it the best when it comes to dialogue. Much of it is very crude and cheesy. Or character development, and what the film does worse than the original is that we don't sympathise with the characters here as much apart from Ginny. The ending is a head-scratcher and pretty nonsensical, not the truly unsettling one of the first film.
Visually, on the other hand, it improves over the original 'Friday the 13th' quite drastically. It's still creepy but has more of a professional, slicker look and like more time was dedicated to it. Like 'Friday the 13th', 'Friday the 13th Part 2' is very gory and gruesome, though not pointlessly so, but it is also very frightening and suspenseful.
This is apparent in the deaths, which are still very creative and shocking, and the hauntingly eerie music score. 'Friday the 13th' is assuredly directed and moves along at a lively pace. As said, Steel carries the film with a good deal of appealing charm and Gillette proves why Jason is often considered an iconic character in horror.
Overall, pretty good sequel and one of the better ones of a variable franchise. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Of the sequels, 'Friday the 13th Part 2' is one of the better ones easily and one of the few instalments to be as good, even on par. It's not perfect, it's not what one would call great. It does however achieve its primary goals well, it is scary and it is fun. Plus it introduces Jason Voorhees as the antagonist, so it is an important sequel in the series in this respect.
Like the first 'Friday the 13th', 'Friday the 13th Part 2' is far from the best when it comes to acting. The exceptions are appealing Amy Steel and a truly freaky Warrington Gillette. Everybody else ranges from average to dead-end.
Nor is it the best when it comes to dialogue. Much of it is very crude and cheesy. Or character development, and what the film does worse than the original is that we don't sympathise with the characters here as much apart from Ginny. The ending is a head-scratcher and pretty nonsensical, not the truly unsettling one of the first film.
Visually, on the other hand, it improves over the original 'Friday the 13th' quite drastically. It's still creepy but has more of a professional, slicker look and like more time was dedicated to it. Like 'Friday the 13th', 'Friday the 13th Part 2' is very gory and gruesome, though not pointlessly so, but it is also very frightening and suspenseful.
This is apparent in the deaths, which are still very creative and shocking, and the hauntingly eerie music score. 'Friday the 13th' is assuredly directed and moves along at a lively pace. As said, Steel carries the film with a good deal of appealing charm and Gillette proves why Jason is often considered an iconic character in horror.
Overall, pretty good sequel and one of the better ones of a variable franchise. 7/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Pray let this be the last
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:14
(A review of Wrong Turn 6: Last Resort)Judging from my other reviews, you would not think that horror films would be my thing, especially very gory ones. Actually aim to have a diverse taste in film, so seeing films from all decades and genres with no bias intended. Plus have seen my fair share of horror franchises where at least one film has been good.
While neither of the first two 'Wrong Turn' films were perfect or great, they were fun and effectively creepy films with a lot to recommend. The series went seriously downhill from the third film onward, with the fifth film being especially bad. In 'Bloody Beginnings', 'Bloodlines' and this, the flaws from 'Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead' are exactly the same, amplified and then more are made on the way while not having either thing that stopped the third film from being worse. Before anybody says anything, despite the series going so drastically downhill they were all seen because every film in a film series deserves a chance regardless of critical consensus.
Only Sadie Katz is anything close to acceptable, she is alluring and actually looks like she's trying. Like Camilla Arfwedson in 'Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines' however, everything else however is done so amateurishly that all her valiant efforts seem a waste.
The rest of the acting is a disgrace, there was a sense that nobody was even trying and it was painful to watch. The only things the cast succeed in doing is accentuating that their very sketchily developed characters are either bland, obnoxious or both and impossible to care for. Especially when their behaviour throughout is just so stupid and illogical. The script is the cheesiest, most stilted and most cliché-ridden of all six films.
Story is both derivative and takes simplicity to extremes, and ruins it further by failing to bring any kind of atmosphere to any of the components, just a lot of cheesy and predictable death scenes with lots of gratuitous gore that makes anything meant to resemble tension or terror feel nauseating or unintentionally funny. There is none of what made the first two films work, everything is just too cheap, too safe, too predictable and too clean. It had a decent premise to work from, but starts dull, un-scary and dumb and stays like that all the way instead of doing the thankful 180 that the second film did.
Visually, there is nothing slick, professional, inventive or atmospheric here, slipshod is a better word for it. The effects are not as bad as in films 3-5 but are still pretty cheap. The direction has no personality or professionalism of any kind, there isn't a sense of understanding the genre or how to overcome a less than lavish budget.
In conclusion, really bad. 1/10 Bethany Cox
While neither of the first two 'Wrong Turn' films were perfect or great, they were fun and effectively creepy films with a lot to recommend. The series went seriously downhill from the third film onward, with the fifth film being especially bad. In 'Bloody Beginnings', 'Bloodlines' and this, the flaws from 'Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead' are exactly the same, amplified and then more are made on the way while not having either thing that stopped the third film from being worse. Before anybody says anything, despite the series going so drastically downhill they were all seen because every film in a film series deserves a chance regardless of critical consensus.
Only Sadie Katz is anything close to acceptable, she is alluring and actually looks like she's trying. Like Camilla Arfwedson in 'Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines' however, everything else however is done so amateurishly that all her valiant efforts seem a waste.
The rest of the acting is a disgrace, there was a sense that nobody was even trying and it was painful to watch. The only things the cast succeed in doing is accentuating that their very sketchily developed characters are either bland, obnoxious or both and impossible to care for. Especially when their behaviour throughout is just so stupid and illogical. The script is the cheesiest, most stilted and most cliché-ridden of all six films.
Story is both derivative and takes simplicity to extremes, and ruins it further by failing to bring any kind of atmosphere to any of the components, just a lot of cheesy and predictable death scenes with lots of gratuitous gore that makes anything meant to resemble tension or terror feel nauseating or unintentionally funny. There is none of what made the first two films work, everything is just too cheap, too safe, too predictable and too clean. It had a decent premise to work from, but starts dull, un-scary and dumb and stays like that all the way instead of doing the thankful 180 that the second film did.
Visually, there is nothing slick, professional, inventive or atmospheric here, slipshod is a better word for it. The effects are not as bad as in films 3-5 but are still pretty cheap. The direction has no personality or professionalism of any kind, there isn't a sense of understanding the genre or how to overcome a less than lavish budget.
In conclusion, really bad. 1/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A bloodline that has been sucked of any blood
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:10
(A review of Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines)Judging from my other reviews, you would not think that horror films would be my thing, especially very gory ones. Actually aim to have a diverse taste in film, so seeing films from all decades and genres with no bias intended. Plus have seen my fair share of horror franchises where at least one film has been good.
Personally quite enjoyed the first two 'Wrong Turn' films, they weren't perfect or great but had a lot to recommend. Hated 'Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead', with the exceptions of two small things. Hated even more 'Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings', a prequel detailing the hillbillies' origins that just came over as completely pointless with nothing interesting to say and was just badly executed as a film. The same goes for 'Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines'. It's like the fourth film, it makes exactly the same flaws as the third film, amplifies them and makes more on the way while not having either thing that stopped that film from being worse.
Camilla Arfwedson is the sole reason 'Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines' gets any stars at all, she is the only actor who tries to give a halfway OK performance and the only asset where any effort is evident. Everything else however is done so amateurishly that all her valiant efforts seem a waste.
The rest of the acting is a disgrace, there was a sense that nobody was even trying and it was painful to watch. The only things the cast succeed in doing is accentuating that their very sketchily developed characters are either bland, obnoxious or both and impossible to care for. Especially when their behaviour throughout is just so stupid and illogical. The script continues to be cheesy, awkward and cliché-ridden.
Story is both derivative and takes simplicity to extremes, and ruins it further by failing to bring any kind of atmosphere to any of the components, just a lot of cheesy death scenes with lots of gratuitous gore that makes anything meant to resemble tension or terror feel nauseating or unintentionally funny. There is none of what made the first two films work, everything is just too cheap, too safe, too predictable and too clean. It had a decent premise to work from, but starts dull, un-scary and dumb and stays like that all the way instead of doing the thankful 180 that the second film did.
Visually, there is nothing slick, professional, inventive or atmospheric here, slipshod is a better word for it. Particularly bad in this regard is the visual effects, the only thing that is scary about them is how risible and truly cheap they are. The direction has no personality or professionalism of any kind, there isn't a sense of understanding the genre or how to overcome a less than lavish budget.
In conclusion, falls completely flat in nearly every way possible with the sole halfway OK asset outdone by the rest of the film being an intelligence-insulting mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Personally quite enjoyed the first two 'Wrong Turn' films, they weren't perfect or great but had a lot to recommend. Hated 'Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead', with the exceptions of two small things. Hated even more 'Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings', a prequel detailing the hillbillies' origins that just came over as completely pointless with nothing interesting to say and was just badly executed as a film. The same goes for 'Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines'. It's like the fourth film, it makes exactly the same flaws as the third film, amplifies them and makes more on the way while not having either thing that stopped that film from being worse.
Camilla Arfwedson is the sole reason 'Wrong Turn 5: Bloodlines' gets any stars at all, she is the only actor who tries to give a halfway OK performance and the only asset where any effort is evident. Everything else however is done so amateurishly that all her valiant efforts seem a waste.
The rest of the acting is a disgrace, there was a sense that nobody was even trying and it was painful to watch. The only things the cast succeed in doing is accentuating that their very sketchily developed characters are either bland, obnoxious or both and impossible to care for. Especially when their behaviour throughout is just so stupid and illogical. The script continues to be cheesy, awkward and cliché-ridden.
Story is both derivative and takes simplicity to extremes, and ruins it further by failing to bring any kind of atmosphere to any of the components, just a lot of cheesy death scenes with lots of gratuitous gore that makes anything meant to resemble tension or terror feel nauseating or unintentionally funny. There is none of what made the first two films work, everything is just too cheap, too safe, too predictable and too clean. It had a decent premise to work from, but starts dull, un-scary and dumb and stays like that all the way instead of doing the thankful 180 that the second film did.
Visually, there is nothing slick, professional, inventive or atmospheric here, slipshod is a better word for it. Particularly bad in this regard is the visual effects, the only thing that is scary about them is how risible and truly cheap they are. The direction has no personality or professionalism of any kind, there isn't a sense of understanding the genre or how to overcome a less than lavish budget.
In conclusion, falls completely flat in nearly every way possible with the sole halfway OK asset outdone by the rest of the film being an intelligence-insulting mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
One unnecessary and amateurish beginning
Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2022 12:07
(A review of Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings)Judging from my other reviews, you would not think that horror films would be my thing, especially very gory ones. Actually aim to have a diverse taste in film, so seeing films from all decades and genres with no bias intended. Plus have seen my fair share of horror franchises where at least one film has been good.
Personally quite enjoyed the first two 'Wrong Turn' films, they weren't perfect or great but had a lot to recommend. Hated 'Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead', with the exceptions of two small things. Hated even more 'Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings', a prequel detailing the hillbillies' origins that just came over as completely pointless with nothing interesting to say and was just badly executed as a film. It makes exactly the same flaws as the third film, amplifies them and makes more on the way while not having either thing that stopped that film from being worse.
It's the camera work that fares the least badly in 'Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings', that it's still not very good with only moments of atmosphere is saying a lot about how awful everything else is.
Every single actor here is awful, no exceptions. Inexperience is all over the film. The only things the cast succeed in doing is accentuating that their very sketchily developed characters are either bland, obnoxious or both and impossible to care for. Especially when their behaviour throughout is just so stupid and illogical. The script is even more stilted, clichéd and cheesy than that in the third film.
The story is both derivative and takes simplicity to extremes, and ruins it further by failing to bring any kind of atmosphere to any of the components (or at least consistently with the camera work). There is none of what made the first two films work, everything is just too cheap, too safe, too predictable and too clean. It had a decent premise to work from, but starts dull, un-scary and dumb and stays like that all the way instead of doing the thankful 180 that the second film did.
Visually, there is nothing slick, professional, inventive or atmospheric here, slipshod is a better word for it. Particularly bad in this regard is the visual effects, the only thing that is scary about them is how risible and truly cheap they are. The direction has no personality or professionalism of any kind, there isn't a sense of understanding the genre or how to overcome a less than lavish budget.
In conclusion, unnecessary and amateurish, either to be avoided or watched with caution. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Personally quite enjoyed the first two 'Wrong Turn' films, they weren't perfect or great but had a lot to recommend. Hated 'Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead', with the exceptions of two small things. Hated even more 'Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings', a prequel detailing the hillbillies' origins that just came over as completely pointless with nothing interesting to say and was just badly executed as a film. It makes exactly the same flaws as the third film, amplifies them and makes more on the way while not having either thing that stopped that film from being worse.
It's the camera work that fares the least badly in 'Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings', that it's still not very good with only moments of atmosphere is saying a lot about how awful everything else is.
Every single actor here is awful, no exceptions. Inexperience is all over the film. The only things the cast succeed in doing is accentuating that their very sketchily developed characters are either bland, obnoxious or both and impossible to care for. Especially when their behaviour throughout is just so stupid and illogical. The script is even more stilted, clichéd and cheesy than that in the third film.
The story is both derivative and takes simplicity to extremes, and ruins it further by failing to bring any kind of atmosphere to any of the components (or at least consistently with the camera work). There is none of what made the first two films work, everything is just too cheap, too safe, too predictable and too clean. It had a decent premise to work from, but starts dull, un-scary and dumb and stays like that all the way instead of doing the thankful 180 that the second film did.
Visually, there is nothing slick, professional, inventive or atmospheric here, slipshod is a better word for it. Particularly bad in this regard is the visual effects, the only thing that is scary about them is how risible and truly cheap they are. The direction has no personality or professionalism of any kind, there isn't a sense of understanding the genre or how to overcome a less than lavish budget.
In conclusion, unnecessary and amateurish, either to be avoided or watched with caution. 1/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry