I like the new Candyman. I don't love it, but I like it a lot. This film co-written and directed by Nia DaCosta wants to be the Wes Craven's New Nightmare of this franchise, and whenever it reaches that level, it hits a home run — especially when it comes to the eponymous monster, who has never been more sinister or menacing (Tony Todd, who originated the role in 1992, appears in a limited but effective capacity that transcends mere fanservice).
Speaking of 1992, DaCosta, who was three years old at the time, would not have been able to bring this project to fruition without the invaluable help of co-writers Jordan Peele and Win Rosenfeld, who know the material inside out and treat it with the same reverence that they it doubtless without inspired in them when they first encounter it in their teens. The filmmakers even get the comic relief right, and that’s not something too many horror flicks can brag about.
The original Candyman "was a horror movie that scared with ideas and blood, instead of just blood" (Ebert); the new version lives up to this standard, creating a foreboding atmosphere with practical special effects rather than CGI.
For example, mirrors are Candyman's portal into our world, and the film makes the most of every reflecting surface — like when the protagonist, Anthony McCoy (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) gets into an elevator that somehow doubles as hall of mirrors.
The present co-exists nicely with the past (another touch as brilliant as bringing Todd back is using Virginia Madsen's voice on recordings made by her character in the first film) in Candyman, but the future is cause for concern.
This is not a remake, much less a reboot, but there is a 'passing the torch' — or, in this case, the hook — which I fear is meant to pave the way for more sequels. I can only hope that DaCosta, Peele, and Rosenfeld really appreciate Candyman as much as I think they do, and that having restored his dignity, they allow him to ride off into the sunset with it intact.

_Candyman's_ story was intriguing and with spectacular visuals it is a decent watch, but for a horror film there was a significant lack of... horror. At no point in the film was there tension, dread, or a sense that I was being lead to a thrilling climax, it was more of a character study on Candyman. The character study aspect was great, I loved hearing the mythos of Candyman from different people in the community. The investigation into the backstory of Candyman paired with commentary on police brutality was really well done, but this was marketed as a horror film and it did not deliver. The cinematography was excellent, there were some really great shots utilizing mirrors and different angles but is that enough? In the end, this movie left me wanting much more.
**Score:** _58%_
**Verdict:** _Decent_

I'm a huge fan of Tony Todd as Candyman and always have been, this was a good story and the actors play their parts very well. However afterward it was kind of ruined for me when they all started talking about it being about racism.
Why did they have to make it about racism when it was enjoyable as a horror movie?

I rewatched the 1992's Candyman in preparation for Nia DaCosta's (Little Woods) direct sequel, so I could get the most out of it without having to force my memory to kick in. Despite being addicted to Philip Glass' score of the original film, Bernard Rose's take on Clive Barker's short story isn't exactly one of my favorite classics, even though I appreciate it quite a bit. Expectations-wise, I didn't know the director beforehand, but I was curious to see what DaCosta could bring to the famous tale.
Unfortunately, I'm not the right person to tackle the heavy themes depicted in the filmmaker's sophomore flick. From an evident, strong opinion about gentrification to the biased white critical lenses, the director has a clear vision and firm messages concerning cultural injustice. As a white European young man, I'm not going to pretend to have experience or even enough knowledge to approach these necessary, sensitive debates, so I'll let other critics, namely Black authors, spread their voices.
Nevertheless, I have mixed feelings about this sequel. Despite being beautifully shot (John Guleserian), edited (Catrin Hedström), and scored (Robert A. A. Lowe), the thematically driven screenplay often feels forced and occasionally preachy. Characters are thinly developed through an uncommonly too short runtime. The never-ending silhouette recaps of the previous movie are unnecessary, and weirdly enough, a major revelation of this sequel is partially ruined by simply (re)watching the original film. The extreme gore is still present, though slightly toned down, at least from my perspective.
Technically and visually, it's truly one of the most interesting movies of the year. Sadly, it isn't able to transmit the same quality to the two pillars of filmmaking - story and characters."
Rating: C

The Silence mutes any and all brain activity, sending viewers into a quiet sleep. “Shhhh! Be vewy vewy quiet! I’m hunting carnivewous ancient bats!”. For even the most minuscule of noises will send a swarm of ‘Pitch Black’ ‘Doctor Who’-esque bat demons that will scratch, bite and gnaw at your flesh. Based on a novel apparently, however any and all originality was tossed out of the family car window when both the superior ‘A Quiet Place’ and hugely popular ‘Bird Box’ were capitalising on the whole “sense prevention” horror schtick. Basically, it’s both those films put together. Ancient bat creatures are released from an uncharted cave system and are terrorising the continent of North America, where we follow a family trying to survive and reach a refuge.
Problem is, this family is so chilled and relaxed during this heightened state of emergency, that any and all threat is relinquished from the nonchalant acting and careless attitudes. Urgh, honestly! Leonetti is doing his absolute best in unimaginatively mimicking other similar films, where veteran and all-round talent Tucci is waltzing around the countryside showing a face of “I can’t be bothered, release me from this torturous nightmare”.
Plagued by infuriatingly stupid plot conveniences and character choices, the severe lack of tension halts the momentum entirely. Heck, it’s not even in neutral anymore. It’s reversing! Examples include (brace yourself...): handing a handgun to the uncle who is then left to die, ginger son conveniently switching cars before one of them veers over a verge, iPhones instantly muting themselves when submerged in water for a total of three seconds and bringing an obviously loud dog with you. That last example, accompanied with an unnecessary scene involving members of the public banishing a mother and her baby due to generating far too much noise, are simply utilised to showcase the destructive nature of humanity. Yup. Humans suck, and this film wants you to know that. You shan’t be scared by the horrifically visualised bat demons that look smoother than Tucci’s bald head. It’s the characters that’ll get under your skin and infuriate you.
Need more proof? The entire third act. Father and daughter wander off to the nearest pharmacy, surprisingly making zero noise whatsoever on the way there, and encounter a mentally unstable reverend who yearns to fertilise young girls to maintain the population and chop their tongues off (after the foreplay, obviously...). What. The. Hell? That was so left field that even the flying angels didn’t see that coming. The narrative focus shifts constantly, making an already boring premise even more tediously mundane.
Aside from one sacrifice towards the conclusion that had some emotional gravitas, The Silence offers nothing more than another forced extraction of this now dull horror concept. Actors weren’t trying, direction was unstable and the insufficient amount of scares were, well, insufficient. Oh wait, I forgot! It literally ends on the daughter becoming survivalist-styled Lara Croft and hunting these winged menaces down. Oh no no! I’m done! Just watch ‘A Quiet Place’ instead...

Same story as "Sshhh" and "Bird Box", In this movie you can speak (loudly).But you can see, which is different by Netflix.

This was an ok movie. What happened to Tiffany and their kid. There just all of a sudden gone. They established a family in the last sequel to being non existent in this movie.

Neither the darker and brutal supernatural slasher of the original _Child's Play_, nor the cheesier and campy fun found in the other two "_Of Chucky_" films, so fans hoping for either one of those outcomes will be disappointed. But if you think of it as less a _Child's Play_ film, and look at it for what it really is, a straight-to-video horror, then it's.... Okay I guess?
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Fun! The performances from Sebastian Stan and Daisy Edgar-Jones are probably the strongest things here. Pretty solid body horror, but something in me wishes it was a bit more grimy in sections. Some gutsy stylistic decisions here in the cinematography and direction that I think really pay off and help cultivate a more immersive atmosphere. Adored the opening credits and the soundtrack too!

'Fresh' is very good - strong performances and perfectly chosen music are the main reasons for that.
I wouldn't say it's perfect, just because I don't think it nails the split between humour and seriousness but apart from that it's a terrifically made film. Daisy Edgar-Jones and Sebastian Stan give excellent showings, while the music throughout is top notch. It's nicely paced and has an interesting story. Definitely one I'd recommend.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/fresh-spoiler-free-review-sundance-2022
"FRESH is an unforgettably shocking start to another Sundance Film Festival, holding all of the characteristics to end up as one of the absolute favorites.
Mimi Cave delivers an extraordinarily captivating, assertive directorial debut, taking Lauryn Kahn's original, gruesome screenplay to the next level. Sebastian Stan demonstrates his ludicrous range, while Daisy Edgar-Jones gives a breakthrough performance that may warrant a couple of awards by the end of the festival.
With an extremely engaging yet too quick first act, the viewers are immediately grabbed by the endearing love story that slowly builds up to a brutally impactful revelation, leading the movie into a rabbit hole of (in)tense, suspenseful, surprising developments.
The last twenty minutes are the definition of insanity."
Rating: A-

About the only thing this has going for it is Sandra Bullock, who performs decently, even while overacting...

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
Sandra Bullock carries this mad tale of time shifting back and forth throughout a week in the highest stakes of her life.
Not only do you get an interesting time travel story delivered in a dramatic fashion, as opposed to the action comedies they normally are, but you get a deep conversation of the implied morality of knowing the future and the agency of acting upon that information.
Good writing takes this far, but Bullock's performance is the big benefit of this one.

Terrible, disturbing movie. Felt sick watching it. I would never reccomend this movie. there are so many better vigilante movies in existence throughout all of years: past present future. i regret watching it.

'Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde' is almost watchable, but I'd say I was more bored than locked onto what I was watching across the 90 minutes. It feels like a partial retread of the first film, it does its own thing but this one hits very similar beats; gets a touch tedious.
The cast is possibly an upgrade, though the characters that appear aren't quite as interesting. Reese Witherspoon remains a competent lead, while Sally Field is decent in a welcomed off-type role. Not that Field's Victoria is all that positive; the exact same can be said for Regina King's Grace.

Not as good as the first but still an ok movie. We get to see Elle Woods being an attorney more. She's pretty good at what she does.

I was looking for a film to watch. Being a big Helen Mirren fan, I decided to give this one a go. What a great choice it was!
The fact that the entire film is in real time, meaning we watch the event as they unfold in real time, makes it a true edge-of-the-seat stuff. Acting was nothing to brag about but the story was great. As you watch it, you keep finding yourself arguing with yourself, trying to decide what you would actually do if you were one of the characters in the film.
If you’re looking for something to watch and have access to this film, don’t even think for a second and press that play button.
Would I watch it again? Yes! Would I make my friends watch it? Absolutely!

Eye in the Sky wants to explore the question of drone warfare.
An operation to capture a terrorist cell in Kenya. Helen Mirren plays Colonel who is rather gung ho and wants to take out the bad guys before they do more harm.
Aaron Paul is a drone pilot who is dithering because of the risk to civilian casualties.
The film pursues the human touch of a young girl selling bread in the market place, being at the wrong place as that is where the drone aims to strike.
Eye in the Sky is an oddly structured film, it is tense as the audience wonders of the little girl will be safe. It also wants to have an open and even debate on the morals and perils of drone warfare but it all feels rather undercooked and underwhelming.
This was Alan Rickman's final film, he rightly has the last line: 'Never tell a soldier they don't know the cost of war.'

> The modern warfare, and its advantages as well as drawbacks.
A new kind of war. When everyone is worried about robots might take over our jobs, it meant military as well. There was not robots in this, but a war fought from a safe distance and soldiers don't have to be physically trained so well, even the geeks with the gaming knowledge can take over. So a film about the modern warfare where the casualty rate is very minimum and can be accomplished before any major assault take place.
From the South African director of 'Ender's Game' fame. This is slightly a similar theme, but a real world affair and a real time presentation. Initially I thought it was a remake of the Hong Kong film of the same name. We had seen drone attacks in the films, but they won't last for a few minutes. This film was entirely about how drone missions work that told with detail.
"Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war."
This was a very good film and they must make a sequel to it. This film will get a special status going towards the future. There were no physically exceptional performances, the stars' presence and their verbal expressions were stronger. So there many thrilling scenes with great lines, especially Alan Rickman's final dialogue. This film was his final film and he was excellent like the usual. Even the Abdi's role was small, but powerful and so Helen Mirren's, but Aaron Paul and the rest were decent.
The story was good, but I did not like the too much sentimentalised. Because all's fair in love and war. You won't make a film to please the terrorists and their sympathisers. Other than that it is a masterpiece. Surely worth a watch.
8/10

**A good psychological horror movie.**
For me, the only good thing about Halloween is the amount of horror movies on television. The Anglo-Saxon reader, don't get me wrong, I know it's a tradition very dear to the Americans and the British, and I respect that, in the same way I respect Dia de Los Muertos. But in my country, this tradition is non-existent. I only started hearing about it fifteen years ago, due to an irresistible alliance between commerce (always interested in selling trinkets and masks left over from Carnival) and the weight of globalization, which turns cultural variety into a homogeneous, tasteless soup. What we have in my country is just the Catholic celebration of All Saints and, the next day, the religious feast of the deceased, with the traditional pilgrimage to the cemeteries. For those who are not Christian or have no one dear in the cemetery, maybe these are days like any other. But let's get down to business!
As you can see, I saw this movie for Halloween, and I really liked what I saw. Despite the presence of Sérgio Sánchez, who signs the script and guarantees impeccable direction, and despite having been filmed and produced in Spain, the film features English-speaking actors and the entire story takes place in the United States. The script begins with the arrival of a mother, with her children, to her family home, which has been closed for a long time. It's clear from the start that they are on the run and hiding from an abusive husband/father left in Europe. Everything goes well until the mother's death, who leaves the children in the care of the eldest. From then on, they try to hide her death until he turns 21, the age from which he will be entitled to be the brothers' legal guardian, thus ensuring that they all remain together.
There's so much more to the script, it's not just a family melodrama about close-knit brothers and the dangers of an abusive father. Terror is very present in the remains of that decrepit house, where something else is present, and a dark secret hidden somewhere on the upper floor, totally inaccessible. The young orphans' relationship with Allie, their closest neighbor, and with a lawyer from the nearby town, will be the impetus for new developments, which will lead us to know more about the young people, and what really exists in that isolated house. The film is full of twists, and some of them surprised me a little.
George MacKay is the great protagonist of the film and gives us a truly superb, deep and sometimes disturbing interpretation. Despite the quality of the cast, in general, being good, he stands out from the others and steals our attention whenever he appears. Charlie Heaton is another good addition, and especially shines in the scenes where he plays with MacKay, in particular in his various conflicts. Tom Fisher is quite effective as a villain, even though he is not happy with his character, stripped of any depth and turned into a mad beast, a closet monster determined to eat little children. Anya Taylor-Joy was a nice and effective addition, but it has very little to do.
Technically, the film relies heavily on cinematography, filming locations, sound effects and set design. The cinematography takes advantage of the cold colors and misty days, as well as the dim light from the interiors of the house, and from the lit candles, to help create a tense and suitably somber atmosphere, which is thickened by the sound effects, very well used, and by the scenery of the country house, aged and in need of works. The house is transformed, as in other scary house movies, into an additional character in the plot, with its own personality and its own history and quirks. The choice of costumes and cars puts us in tune with the time when everything happens (the 50s). However, it lacks an effective and truly memorable soundtrack.

Marrowbone is another drama being mismarketed as a horror movie. While I would agree that Marrowbone has some thriller elements, I felt that fear in the horror sense as much as horror felt through dread. Aside from the disappointment upon the realization that the trailers mislead me, Marrowbone is is a very solid film. All of the acting is great (although George MacKay doesn't really portray pain very authentically), the set is both beautiful and haunting, the camera work makes some memorable scenes, and the story is compelling. The Spanish title is The Secret of Marrowbone, which is a much better title. While I wasn't satisfied with the ending they chose and I still have unaddressed plot holes that still bother me, Marrowbone drew me in and I was pleased with the journey.

_"Down on your marrowbones and pray!"_
A pretty good collection of up-and-comers with a solid enough premise told relatively efficiently, featuring a mix of hardline-by-the-numbers horror and only-mostly-cliche horror, but it lacks that next step to take it over the line into being actually good.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

I don't believe I've ever seen anything quite like it. I highly recommend it.

**A somewhat surrealist film, which has value, but which is not for everyone's taste.**
This film is a little disconcerting. It is an uncompromising Western, frontal, very raw and sometimes difficult to understand. It all starts with William Blake, an accountant from the East Coast, taking a train to a remote place in the West, to accept a job in the company of an unscrupulous industrialist. It turns out that the vacancy was filled by someone else: at the end of the day, unmotivated, he goes to bed with a prostitute and ends up killing a man who tried to kill her out of jealousy. This man was the son of the factory owner, who sends henchmen after Blake, who is unaware of this and runs away, ending up in the company of a strange Indian named Nobody.
The film has great artistic note. It has excellent black and white cinematography, makes intelligent use of light, shadow, angles and filming framing. The sets and costumes are very good: they are not particularly rigorous from a historical point of view, the film was not concerned with being strictly framed in time and space, so that aesthetics prevails over the realism of the recreation. However, the aesthetic value is remarkable, and it gives us a raw, rough and dirty vision of the West. Jim Jarmusch ensures effective management that makes the most of what's in its hands. There are a good number of visual effects and the soundtrack, based on the electric guitar, is atmospheric and somehow fits into the film effectively, even if it is never one of the soundtracks that we will want to have on CD.
The film has a series of good actors, of which Johnny Depp stands out in an almost natural way. He was still young here, but he already showed his taste for playing the most bizarre characters. However, and perhaps because of the bizarre nature of the film itself, it is not one of the actor's greatest works. Iggy Pop, Robert Mitchum and Crispen Glover are also here, and they do an interesting and sincere job, in rough, tough characters, with few lines and a lot of presence and impact.
The big problem with the film – and it really is a big one – is that it is so apparently complex and almost surreal. At various times it is suggested that the character played by Depp is a man who is already dead, and there is almost a synesthesia between the accountant and his British namesake, who was an artist and poet and who would be, at the time of the events of the film, really dead! It's very strange, and such strangeness makes this not a film for everyone's taste.

In this version, it's not "Victor" but "Henry Frankenstein" (Colin Clive) who is convinced that medical science is obstructing his visionary plans to create the very essence of life itself! Frustrated, he retreats to an eerie tower where, with the help of his loyal servant "Fritz" (Dwight Frye) and a few Burke and Hare types, he manages to reconstruct a corpse - complete with the appropriated brain of a criminal (they have distinctly different frontal lobes, you know...!) and is awaiting a thunderstorm to provide him with the the bolt of lightning he needs to kickstart his creation. Meantime, his love "Elizabeth" (Mae Clarke) and her pals "Moritz" (John Boles) and "Dr. Waldman" (Edward van Sloan) are determined to thwart what they see as his obsessive madness. She is horrified by the whole concept, but the scientists are also fascinated - especially when, well.... There are a great many black fades here, which can slow the pace down, but for the most part James Whale uses light, pyrotechnics and the pretty much constant storm to build a story that elicits emotions of fear, sadness - even sympathy as it quite literally lumbers to a denouement that is actually rather sad. The acting and the dialogue are a bit on the basic side, especially from Clarke, but even now this looks great on a big screen and plays wonderfully to the attitudes and superstitions of the time - of writing and production. Well worth a watch - and I hadn't realised that author Mary Shelley was married to the poet Percy!

**_Iconic Gothic horror tragedy_**
This Universal classic from 1931 was based on the 1927 play by Peggy Webling rather than Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel. For those interested in versions fairly faithful to the book, I suggest Kenneth Branagh's 1994 version with De Niro as the creature or the 2004 version with Luke Goss as the monster, the latter of which runs almost 3 hours.
Of course, the gist of Shelley’s story is here and this is the movie that set the standard for the proverbial "mad" scientist with a hunchbacked assistant. While I’m not a fan of B&W movies, it works here to give the illusion of a Bavarian village back in the day. Speaking of which, the director said the story takes place in an "alternate universe," which explains the peculiar mixing of technology & fashions from 1930 (when the film was shot) with elements of the early 1800s.
At the end of the day, this is a truncated, but iconic version of the Frankenstein story, a Gothic horror tragedy highlighted by Boris Karloff’s unforgettable rendition of the monster.
The movie runs 1 hour, 10 minutes, and was shot at Universal Studios and various spots in the greater Los Angeles area (Malibou Lake, Vasquez Rocks and Pasadena).
GRADE: B

Very well made monster movie featuring fine performances all around, even Boris Karloff as the Monster even though he only grunts throughout. Some good set pieces and just an all around entertaining flick. **4.25/5**

Not a totally faithful adaptation of the Mary Shelley book, still extremely important for not just horror movies, but movies as a whole. I thought about coming at this review from the perspective of what 1931's _Frankenstein_ meant for the future of cinema, and how it was still essentially in its infancy and doing anything even close to what _Frankenstein_ did, changing the culture forever and remaining in the zeitgeist even now, almost a hundred years later, is a monumental achievement and should be viewed as such. But that's never really been my jam. _Frankenstein_ might have been great for the time, I don't know, I wasn't there, but I personally only ever found it to be okay. Re-watching it this Halloween was, I think the fourth time I've given it a go, and it's really not as enthralling as people seem to give it credit for. My roommate fell asleep. It's not that it's black and white either, it just doesn't have as clear a philosophical intention as the book, nor as gripping an output as more modern offerings.
_Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

Oh, in the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!
We will always see debates about which of the original wave of Universal Monster movies is the most important. With Dracula being released just under a year before Frankenstein, that tends to give the vampire crowd a sense of justifiable cause for a trumpet fanfare. Perhaps the more pertinent question is which is the better movie? Surely the most hardened of Dracula fans have to bow their heads in acknowledgement that Frankenstein quite simply is superior on every level - even if it itself is not as good as its sequel...
Narrative doesn't quite follow Mary Shelley's original source material (what a brain that lady had!), but the core essence of a tragic tale holds tight. Directing was one James Whale, who here was in his directorial infancy, he himself up for debate about greatest horror genre directors, but his masterful sense of theatrical staging, and that of the terror incarnate for the era, is sublime to the point that come 100 years after its release this will still be held up as a timeless horror classic.
The thematics of the story pulse with brilliance, the advent of berserker science, the alienation and confusion flow of the creature grips and stings the heart equally. The later camp of Whale's horror ventures is mostly absent here, instead we have a dark almost miserably bleak tone, which exists right up to the end title card which brings closure after the brilliant and iconic finale has made its mark. Jack Pierce's marvelous make-up and the birth of Karloff as a genre legend seals the deal on what is without doubt one of the genre's most important films. 9/10

Frankenstein, a movie primarily about how Doctor Henry Frankenstein deals with the fallout of his monster actually coming to life, holds up very well almost ninety years from its release.
Starting with the monster itself, we find a fantastic character. Without any lines of dialogue, the filmmakers and Boris Karloff had to use actions and emotions to display the motivations of the monster, and they did a fantastic job of it. The fear, confusion, and longing that the novel describes are evident in the monster's actions, to the point of pushing the audience to root for him.
The rest of the characters are also a bit of fun. Baron Frankenstein, played by Fred Kerr, was also a hoot. He played a no-nonsense character that functioned well in the comic-relief role needed with Edward Van Sloan's Dr. Wladman and Mae Clarke's Elizabeth being quite serious, even dramatic. Colin Clive, the man who played Doctor Henry, did a decent job in his role as well, pulling off the role of being consumed by his work, even when he desired to be free from it.
The acting, overall, was a touch more theatrical than I would prefer in a horror movie, but it wasn't so distracting that it pulled me out of the film. The film is a ton of fun to watch, but I do have to say it isn't exactly terrifying. The atmospheric creepiness is somewhat lacking compared to modern-era horror, even going back fifty years. That being said, the movie, if thought about and rewatched, does a good job of displaying how the fear of the unknown, and letting that fear take over, can be the real monster.