Change Your Image
katharine-nichols
Reviews
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)
An unnecessary sequel and very disappointing
I just saw Beetlejuice 2. I'm now going to do everything in my power to forget this movie exists. I didn't outright hate the movie, but I definitely didn't like it.
Positives first. Michael Keaton and Catherine O'Hara are the best part of the film. They perfectly slide back into their roles, and have all the funniest moments. More importantly, they seem to remember what Beetlejuice is (more on that later). There were some fun call backs towards the beginning of the film. I also have to praise the film for how they handled Charles Deets. This character was played by Jeffrey Jones in the original. As he's now a registered sex offender, they found a good way to not have him back while still using the character.
That's the end of the positives. Growing up, I would watch the original film and the animated tv series over and over again. They're both good, but very different in terms of tone and approach. It felt like the script writers had seen the show, read a synopsis of the original, then wrote the script for the sequel. The Maitlands not being in this film is explained in a throw away line that's a major plot hole. It seems like the reference to a "loop hole letting them move on" was the original plot. I'm guessing Alec Baldwin's legal troubles were a major issue in writing the film. With the exception of Keaton and O'Hara, the cast seems confused as to if this is a black comedy or supernatural teen romance.
I was very disappointed in Winona Ryder's return as Lydia. The film shows Lydia having grown up to be a psychic ghost hunter. She has an estranged daughter and a dead husband. Honestly, I had a hard time believing Lydia would ever be doing what she was doing for a career. It's shown that she's actually traumatized from the first film, and I just didn't buy it. Meanwhile, Jenna Ortega's storyline drags on as she builds a relationship with a local boy. It would have been better to cut Lydia and focus on her daughter. Finally, the side characters are badly mishandled. Justin Theroux and Willem Dafoe are fine, but their shtick gets very old by act 3. Monica Bellucci is there for some reason. That's almost all I can say about her character, she's there. If all 3 actors were cut from the film, it wouldn't change much.
Final few points. The soundtrack is beyond atrocious. It's heavy disco and 70s soft ballads. The music clashes so badly with the film that it actually destroyed a few of the scenes, making them cringe instead of funny. The effects are ok, but not impressive. It's mostly obvious CGI. The script is all over the place, and yet it isn't. Certain plot points are more or less copies of points from the first movie. When it isn't copying the original, the script loses the thread and leaves plot hole after plot hole.
Stream this one if you want to see it. If you love the original as much as I do, skip it. Pretend the sequel doesn't exist. The original Beetlejuice is a classic that never needed a sequel.
Trap (2024)
In a world of dumb luck and unobservant people....
I did not like this movie at all. Yet again, Shyamalan thinks he's more clever than he is. Let's start with the positives. Josh Hartnett and Saleka are amazing in their roles. To be honest, the positive stars I'm giving are for their performances. I just wish those performances weren't in this movie. That is where my praise stops.
The way characters act and the actions they take stretch believability hard starting less than 15min into the film. When it's revealed why the cops arranged their set up at the concert, any true crime fan will be screaming at the screen in frustration. The entire film's concept would never happen. Beyond that, everyone seems to be incredibly unobservant. The authorities never question him when they absolutely should. Dumb luck also plays a major role in things.
Finally, this is unoriginal. The third act is a mash up of other films and parts of Dexter. One element is going to be particularly recognizable to horror fans as a plot lift from a famous slasher series. If you absolutely have to see this, wait for streaming. It's not worth seeing in the theater.
Twisters (2024)
Genuinely surprised!
I liked the original 1996 film quite a bit and was skeptical about this sequel. Surprisingly, I actually like "Twisters" slightly more than the original. First off, Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell have fantastic chemistry on screen. They take time to build up their relationship and it feels natural. They're surrounded by a cast of interesting, fleshed out side characters that really add to the heart and soul of the film. The entire cast has such an easy flow with each other that the jokes in the script work really well. It's not a comedy, but it's got humor and charm. Second, the plot is pretty light, but vastly entertaining. I thought this film handled the science of tornadoes and potentially disrupting them far better than the original. The special effects are really well done. There are only a few small moments where you can tell some CGI had to be used, but it overall feels pretty real. Really my only real criticism is in regards to a small subplot involving the group Storm Par and their investors. It makes sense (sort of), but I also think you could cut it and rework that part of the story. It doesn't hurt the film, but it also doesn't add to it. Overall, this is a really fun movie with great leads that's slightly better than the original 1996 film. I actually recommend seeing this in the theater if you can, it's worth the ticket price to catch on big screen.
Longlegs (2024)
Alright, way too overhyped and mismarketed
What do you get with a decent script, good technical work, and bad marketing? You get "Longlegs", the latest offering to the horror market. It's actually a decent film IF you properly set your expectations. However, this is a far cry from "scariest film ever," which is plastered to all the marketing. This is a slow burn film involving the hunt for a serial killer. I would call it more of a detective thriller than a horror movie. It's best to go in as blind as possible on the plot details. I will say if you wait for this to come to streaming, you'll be just as satisfied with the watch. I give it a solid B rating.
Now I do have some criticisms, and these might be considered spoilers. First, if you're a Nicholas Cage fan and go to this expecting crazy Nick Cage, temper your expectations. He's great in the role, but he doesn't have as much screen time as you'd expect. Second, there is a supernatural element to what's going on. I've watched many films involving the same supernatural elements used here. Unfortunately, that does make parts of the plot marginally predictable. I still recommend the film, but definitely think you can wait and stream it.
Love Me If You Dare (2024)
Surprisingly well written, enjoyable ghost story
When it comes to ghosts and romance, I usually stay away. It can devolve into schlocky tropes and predictably. However, this movie was an absolute refreshing change of pace that I absolutely loved. There's an intricate story about dealing with trauma at the heart of the film, and the plot goes in numerous unexpected directions. It's cinematically gorgeous, the apartment set reminding me of a well done haunted house. Also the cast gives excellent performances all around, making you really connect with the characters and their experience. My only criticism is that the intricacy of the plot may be a little clearer on a second viewing. Overall, I really highly recommend this one to anyone looking for a ghost story that's not going to end where you think it will. Fantastic!
Poor Things (2023)
I actually walked out
I tried to watch this. The concept of an updated Frankenstein has so many possibilities, and this movie did well at BAFTA. There are a lot of great actors and it's visually fantastic. But as soon as the lead discovers her sexuality, it devolved hard for me. If I wanted to watch a porn, I'd watch one. This actually made me feel very uncomfortable. Consider they open by mentioning her mental age and physical body don't match, so when these scenes first kick off.... it just felt gross. The focus on sex is so intense that I couldn't get into the story of her growth. Honestly, if they edited out the almost 30 min of just sex scenes in the first half, we might be able to enjoy the story. Genuine disappointment.
Ferrari (2023)
2hrs 11mn of miscast people being sad
I went to to this movie mostly because I like the actors. Adam Driver and Shaylene Woodley are great actors, but they're terribly miscast. I couldn't buy them as Italian, and Driver's accent sounded more Russian to me. Penelope Cruz is the only believable character, and she does knock it out of the park. Were it not for her performance, I would give this film a 4.
The main issue is it's a lot of talking and emoting, but not actually showing us anything. We spend more time on Ferrari's relationship issues than with the race. That would be fine if we were given more than a 5 second flashback regarding how he had a kid with each woman. We're told what happened, but not shown. Similarly, other characters are paper thin. I can barely tell you anything about any of them other than the best acted racer was played by Patrick Dempsey.
Then we come to the racing, which is almost entirely in the last 30 min of the film. How do you make a major race boring and predictable? By mentioning it's importance a bunch of times, but again they show us nothing to build any tension. The film doesn't show any of the track till the actual race and you only know it's important for business reputations and sales. Also I have a major issue with the crash scenes, which use very obvious CGI. The CGI work is pretty bad, to the point where one death was almost laughable.
Ultimately, this was an ambitious project with a good cast. But it is beyond boring. If you know nothing about Ferrari, this isn't a good place to start learning. I recommend watching a good documentary rather than waste your time with this movie.
Five Nights at Freddy's (2023)
Massive script issues
Just saw Five Nights at Freddy's. That.... was a hot mess. Let's talk about positives first. The Jim Henson Shop out did themselves bringing Freddy and friends to life. They did primarily practical effects and it shows, the animatronics being the best part of the film. Another positive is the music, which was outstanding!
Unfortunately, that's where my positives stop. This film has two major problems. First, it's PG13. This movie would have benefitted greatly from an R rating, it was tamer than the games. Second, the film can't decide if it is for fans or newcomers. The actual FNAF storyline is largely secondary to the plot of the lead character trying to discover who kidnapped his brother as a child. It's annoying, because when it's not being FNAF, it's just boring. (Also maybe it's the direction given, but the leads were pretty bland). They try to do a mystery thing with the FNAF storyline that doesn't work if you know the games. Matthew Lillard was perfectly cast, but woefully underused (He's in maybe 15min of the movie). Overall, I have to give FNAF the movie a C-. If you want a good version of Five Nights in film, stick with Willy's Wonderland, it's much better.
Asteroid City (2023)
Performance art that lost its meaning
I generally like weird cinema. The cast and interesting visuals drew me in. While pretty to look at, the actors can't do much when they have nothing to work with. This is a film about a play within a play within a tv show. The trailers show nothing of the black and white play portions, and I think there's a reason for that. They make absolutely no sense within the film narrative. Instead of a story about a father coming to terms with the loss of his wife (as the trailer advertises), we actually have a pretentious discussion about how to write and craft a story. Everyone is an actor playing a role within a role, so why do I care about any of them or their supposed struggles? Am I supposed to be invested in the play story or the play within the play that is Asteroid City? It's long, pretentious, self-indulgent style over substance and boring. So I'll end this with a quote. George Sanders in the film All About Eve is a theater critic. He says of one play "It made the minutes fly by like hours." This made seconds fly by like years. Definitely skip, I'm not sure even die hard Wes Anderson fans will like this one.
Professor T (2021)
Great elements, but...
I enjoyed the series as a casual watch. The acting, music and cinematography are all spot on. However, the original Belgian series had 13 episodes in its first season. The British series attempts to shove the same amount of content into six episodes. You barely have time to get to know the characters and become invested in their stories before the season is over. This is most evident in the alcoholism subplot for Inspector Rabet and the father subplot for Anneliese. Given the shortened length, the writers would have done better to either cut one of those subplots, or saved at least one of them for season 2. It also gets too goofy with the visualization of Professor Ts thoughts. Where as the original show used that as an interesting visual element, the British show makes it seem like he's having intermittent acid trips. This aspect is made less effective in the British version when one character (a girl with Downs Syndrome) seemingly interacts with the same weird visuals he's seeing. In the original, only Professor T reacts to the odd visuals, making it clear these are his inner, personal thoughts. (I do want to note that the episode with this girl is the best in the British series and exceptionally moving at times). Honestly, if you have PBS Passport or Amazon you can access the original Belgian show, and it's far better than the British version. If they do make a season 2, the writers will need to slow things down a little and clarify a number of elements that just didn't translate well from the original Belgian show.
Spiral: From the Book of Saw (2021)
Pretty good Saw spin-off
I actually really enjoyed the movie. The story is pretty good, the traps are brutal, and the characters are enjoyable. Its main flaw is that about halfway through, if you know the saw series well, you'll be able to spot the killer. This is really more of a Saw spin off than a true Saw 9, but its worth the watch.
Texas Rising (2015)
Going OK until....
I love the cast for this series and it really had a lot of potential. I can even say I was enjoying the series as long as you don't think about its historical inaccuracy. It's sad you can't trust the History Channel to show you history, but this was an OK cowboy fiction.
However, I saw part three tonight and was tempted to turn off the series all together. There is a horribly violent scene with a family being slaughtered by Comanche. Now, setting aside how negatively the series tone is towards Native Americans, the excessive violence in this scene was unnecessary. Why do we need to see an entire family (small children and puppy included) horrifically slaughtered in every gory detail? It doesn't add to the story in the least and I personally found it offensive and unnecessary. There are other parts where sex and violence just seem to be included for no reason than because it can be, and it isn't needed for the story.
I don't know how to feel about this series in total, though I'm debating if I really want to see the next part after part 3. If you do watch this, understand that it has a great cast but they can't save the film from its underlying flaws such as bad direction, excessive/unnecessary gore, and serious historical issues.