The Fanatic

image source

The Fanatic is an experience of a movie. I mean this in both the best and worst ways possible. This movie feels like it has the loosest semblance of a plot. The film is written and directed by Fred Durst (yes, lead singer of Limp Bizkit, Fred Durst). Durst’s screenplay is surface-level at best. Perhaps the most fascinating thing is knowing that this is not Fred Durst’s first directorial effort. Yet, watching this movie, you would never know that. I really think this is a movie that will ultimately be placed on the same level as films such as Birdemic, Troll 2, and The Room. The lead performance by John Travolta may just be the ultimate proof of this. I mean the man breaks one of the biggest rules of acting. He “went full retard.” The film never really gives a distinct protagonist and antagonist. Travolta’s character, Moose (yes, that’s his name) is clearly on the Autism Spectrum. Adding on to that, if this film were anything more than just trashy entertainment, I would probably find this more offensive. If you do, I can’t hold it against you.  You also know that his actions are obviously too far over the line. At the same time, Hunter Dunbar (played by Devon Sawa) is just kind of an asshole from the beginning. The dialogue is laughably bad. John Travolta’s first line in the movie is “I can’t talk long. I gotta poo.” I wish I was making that up. Another wonderful line in this film is: “Moose didn’t just cross the line. He fucking nuked it.” The climax (if I can actually call it that) is difficult to put into words. It’s not even that I’m worried about spoiling it. Keep in mind, this only me scratching the surface of this film. It’s more-so that it’s almost indescribable. The Fanatic is a movie in the loosest sense of the word, and is so laughably bad, it’s honestly worth seeking out. 

0 / 10 

Prom Night (2008)

image source

I kind of feel like this is a review that has been a long time coming for me. While I don't necessarily consider the original Prom Night among my all-time favorite slashers, I still think it's a good flick that's worth a watch for slasher fans. This version of Prom Night is one of the absolute worst horror movies I have ever seen. This is a movie that actually has a good cast-including Brittany Snow, Jonathan Schaech, Linden Ashby (Johnny Cage from Mortal Kombat), and Idris Elba. The problem with this is the script for this thing is so poor that these actors are wasted. I think the waste of Idris Elba is the wasted actor that makes me the most upset, as he is one of my all-time favorite actors. He is so much better than the material that he has been given, but even he doesn't seem fully invested, almost as though he really doesn't want to be here. But, I know what you're thinking. This is a remake of a cult classic slasher film. So, it has to have some creative kills. NO! This remake has a PG-13 rating. I've seen ways that this can be done right. For example, the Happy Death Day movies are PG-13, but I actually think the filmmakers were actually invested in those films. In the case of the Prom Night remake, I see it more as a cash grab. All the producers wanted was to make a profit, essentially robbing this film of a soul. The cult classics of the 1980s were all R-rated, and for very good reason. The characters in this film are awful. I know that slasher movies don't necessarily have the greatest characters. However, if I told you to name characters from some of the classics of the slasher genre, you easily could. I don't remember the name of a single character in this movie, not that I would really want to. I am somebody who tries to look for positives, and this is one of those movies where it is honestly, really difficult for me to do so. Is this the worst slasher movie I have ever seen? No, but it is a close second. I say this as somebody who has seen and reviewed I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer. But, you should still know that I do still think this may be one my most hated films of all time. The remake of Prom Night is nothing more than a soulless cash grab that has no right or purpose to even remotely exist.

0 / 10 

The Haunting of Sharon Tate

image source

The Haunting of Sharon Tate stars Hilary Duff as the murdered actress. The movie is about the nightmares she had in regards to her untimely death. I can see why this film was released direct to on-demand. From the very first shot, the film just had this cheap look to it. The film’s poor acting certainly didn’t help matters either. To be fair to the actors in this film, most of the blame need placed on writer-director Daniel Farrands. The dialogue in this film is so atrocious that any actors would struggle to make it work or sound natural. “In movie speak…” This is how an actual line in the film starts. It’s honestly so bad, I think I legitimately blocked the rest of it from my memory. The writing in this film is so bad, it makes George Lucas look like Quentin Tarantino by comparison. Think about that. Aside from that, the movie throws in themes of fate and destiny. Because this film is horribly written, it comes off as incredibly forced. Going even further into the sins of the film’s writing, the screenplay feels largely padded. The film is 90 minutes long, and nothing of note really happens until the half-hour mark. of course, when it actually looks like something is going to happen, the film falls back on the lazy, forced, tired dream sequence cliche. I almost wish that I had more to say about this movie simply because I hated it that much. The problem is that when a film that is bad meanders this much doesn’t really leave me with that much to say. The last thing I really think I can say about this piece of shit is that it is the worst movie I have seen so far this year. It is a film with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and I feel bad just for potentially drawing attention to it. 

0 / 10 

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2

image source

I’m just going start this off by saying that I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the Blair Witch franchise to begin with. I think the first one is overrated, and not deserving of the hype that was built around it. I did think the third (and most recent one) was pretty solid, despite it’s flaws. That brings us to Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2, the movie in the franchise I hadn’t seen up until this point. The film follows a tour group after the success of the original Blair Witch Project film. Along the way, something starts messing with their heads. I guess the best place to start would be looking at the film’s direction. It’s not very good, though that may not necessarily be director Joe Berlinger’s fault. The man went on record to say that his original vision for the film was supposed to comment on mass hysteria and deal with a more meta tone. Glimpses of the original idea seem to be there, but far less well thought out. Now, I can’t speak to exactly how true this actually is, but I thought it was worth noting, especially because of just how much the movie jumps around, making this incredibly confusing when you watch the film. It also wouldn’t surprise me if it was true—especially thinking about the final product that we were given, but I’ll speak on that later. At this point, I think it would be  important to discuss the film’s editing, especially as it heavily ties into the film’s direction, and feels like the logical next step. As I said, the film really moves around, and is incredibly confusing. The film jumps around in its timeline a lot. I’m not criticizing the film for being nonlinear (The Usual Suspects, Pulp Fiction, and Memento are some of my favorite movies). It just feels more like the filmmakers didn’t know what should be left to the imagination, and what should be spelled out. Every time the movie tries shifting around in the timeline, it feels jarring. Remember how I said I wanted to touch on the film’s backstory more. Well, it’s the film’s story (and overall writing) that makes me wonder if Berlinger’s side of the story actually has some truth to it. The script makes little to no sense, and feels incredibly hackneyed. This also feels true of the film’s editing. The film tries to throw twists and turns in there, but they never feel earned (mostly because the film just sucks). If there is one thing about this movie I don’t utterly hate, it’s honestly the acting. OK, it’s not exactly going to win any awards, but it isn’t horrible. Unfortunately, the actual characters themselves fucking suck. They have little to no development, and leave absolutely no impact. There were legitimately points where I would forget who they after they disappeared for five minutes. Yeah, think about that. But, this film’s biggest sin is that it isn’t even remotely scary. The whole thing is dull and plodding. I reached a moment where I shook my head because I though I was further into the movie, but I was only 20 minutes in. I honestly don’t even know if the film was trying to be scary ( if it was, it really did a bang up job at it). Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 has built up a reputation over the years as one of the worst horror movies—and sequels of all time. Having seen the film for myself, I can easily see why. There’s little to nothing about Book of Shadows that actually works. It tries throwing everything at the screen (expect the book of shadows) and hardly any of it sticks. 

0 / 10  

Show Dogs

image source

Police dog Max (voiced by Ludacris - clearly waiting for the next Fast and the Furious movie to come along) is teamed up with human FBI agent Frank (played by Will Arnett) to find a stolen baby panda. In order to do so, Max is entered into a Las Vegas dog show. After having watched this movie all the way through, I'm legitimately convinced I have come out dumber for having seen this movie. Show Dogs isn't just a bad movie. It is one of the absolute stupidest, laziest, lowest-common denominator hunks of flaming dogshit I have ever seen. And I'm not just talking about the movies I've reviewed in the past four years I've had this blog, and have actually been writing movie reviews. I'm taking about the movies I have seen in my entire life. There isn't a single frame of this movie that can be enjoyed on any level. The CGI is atrocious. The movie acts a career low-point for almost everyone involved. For further proof, the cast includes Alan Cumming, the only one that I think is the exception (only because I hate Son of the Mask slightly more), and Shaquille O'Neal (whose film credits include Kazaam, Steel, Grown Ups 2, Blended, and Jack and Jill). Yes, that's how low a lot of this cast sinks. When I would (gun to my head) rather watch Shaq's cameo performance in Jack and Jill than a single frame of this thing, then you know it's a bad sign. The movie makes references to Turner & Hooch (a vastly superior film in every way). Every single joke falls flat. The meta jokes in this movie aren't even a little bit clever. They actually make a Lego Movie joke because Will Arnett was in that movie (something I'm sure he was wishing he could be doing instead). Hell, I'm convinced he'd rather have another Michael Bay, Megan Fox Ninja Turtles movie come his way. At least those movies could leave him with some dignity. This is also the worst film from director Raja Gosnell. This is the same guy who directed both live-action Smurfs movies and Home Alone 3. Nobody comes out of this movie looking good. The saddest cast member involvement in this movie has got to be Stanley Tucci (who also clearly doesn't give a shit about anything he's doing here).At a point, I think I might have actually suffered a break in my mental sanity. I would say that this should have come out twenty years ago. The weird thing is, even twenty years ago, I'm pretty sure most people would be shocked to find out that this was a theatrical release. This doesn't even deserve to be one of those movies you'd only randomly find when you're walking through the relatively small DVD section of some gas station in the middle of nowhere. There are two types of movies where I hate the bad films in those genres more than the bad films in any other genre. I hate bad family films, and I hate bad comedies. Show Dogs was both. Not only did I get angry because this movie treats its target audience like idiots. But, I was also angry because making me laugh is one of the easiest things in the world to do. You know a movie's bad when it fails to make even the most easily amused person laugh. Don't watch this, you'll get nothing out of it but misery.

0 / 10 

The Apparition

image source

There is only one question to ask about the movie The Apparition. What the hell was that? I suppose I should try to describe the movie's plot, but it doesn't really make any sense. I could describe the plot of the movie's trailer. The plot of the actual movie is not the plot that the trailer tells you it is. If you don't believe me, click this link. This movie is awful. The easiest way I can describe this movie is like this: It feels like the shitty sequel you get to classic horror movies so that the studio can make money. The difference is, we don't have the classic original to go with this. But, I'd be lying if I said it doesn't belong in the same conversation as something like The Room. Yes, that's the kind of bad movie you get out of this. The acting is bad from pretty much everybody. Tom Felton's clearly the one trying, even if I can't say his performance is particularly great. I'll give him credit though because he obviously played a nothing character. I feel bad for Sebastian Stan. He's horrible in this movie. If you've seen Sebastian Stan in anything else, then you know he can act. Hell, the only other actor in this movie that rivals Tom Felton is a dog. Oh, I don't just mean that the acting is bad. I mean this like bad student film acting bad. Actually, the filmmaking gives of that kind of vibe too. Almost immediately, I thought to myself that this couldn't have actually been a theatrically released movie.It probably wouldn't have been released theatrically if it didn't star Draco Malfoy, the Winter Soldier, and one of the more interesting secondary females from Twilight. Do you want to know the kinds of scares this movie offers? A garage door opens itself in broad daylight. Yeah, that's about as scary as it sounds. The main characters are idiots. They're so stupid that Jason and Freddy victims would look at them with pity. Weird shit happens on the first night that they're in the house. The next morning, their first thought isn't to pack the car and leave. Just when I think the girl (I don't really care or remember what their names are) has started to develop a brain, she literally changes her mind 30 seconds later (almost like she realized she can't actually be intelligent). Also, the product placement in this movie makes Adam Sandler movies look subtle by comparison.  

image source

To make things even funnier, there's a good five minutes where our "heroine" is walking around in nothing but those clothes. They don't really try to hide the fact that it was just an excuse to get her in her underwear. I'll admit that I was a little bit surprised that this was the only scene in the movie that did this. But hey, the movie can't be too classy, can it? Oh, by the way, do you see the image on the poster? Well, that's the last shot of the movie. Now, you might be asking yourself why I spoiled that for you. The simple answer is that the movie spoils it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the fucking poster! At a point I realized that this movie should have been about Tom Felton trying to summon spirits. Give that movie to Mike Flanagan, and there's actually a legitimately good flick to come out of this. Then again, we probably wouldn't have the amazing comedy that we got instead. The Apparition is a hilariously piss-poor horror movie. It never manages to scare you. It always manages to make laugh (even if it's completely unintentional). 

0 / 10 

Slender Man

image source

I had pretty much figured that Slender Man was going to be a bad movie as soon as I saw the trailer. However, I still watched this movie with something of an open mind. Ten minutes into the movie, I knew this thing was doomed to fail. At this point, the filmmakers had proven they weren't going to offer anything interesting or original. How do I know this? Here's the plot: four idiot teenage girls decide to summon the titular Slender Man (who's barely in the movie by the way) by watching an internet video. One week later, and they're having nightmares, and one of them disappears. The thing is, this idea worked a lot better in The Ring. Why? The images you see on the videotape in that movie are legitimately fucked up. The characters in this movie suck. For about the first third of the movie, they aren't developed. For example, the movie constantly tells you what the characters' names are, and I've already forgotten them (I only finished the movie a few minutes ago at the time I'm writing this). I knew next to nothing about these girls five minutes into the movie. By twenty minutes in, that really hadn't changed. By the time they do try developing these characters (a whopping thirty minutes into this ninety minute movie), it feels too little, too late. Hell, they don't actually develop the girl who vanishes until after she's disappeared. Because of this, I don't care about these girls. I feel no attachment to them or any investment in them. When the one girl disappeared, I really couldn't muster up a reaction beyond "eh, whatever." A good chunk of the movie is these girls trying to find their friend and stop Slender Man (I think). The issue here is that if I can't find myself invested in the characters, why should I invest myself in the mystery they are (maybe) trying to solve. It feels like a mix of my not really caring and the filmmakers not really caring. Interestingly enough, I found out while I wrote this review that a lot of scenes were cut before the movie was released in theaters, and that honestly makes sense. More than anything, it makes the movie feel tedious. It comes off as a chore more than anything else. As cliched as it might be for me to say, this movie feels twice as long as it's 90 minute run-time. The movie also fails at being scary. The first major scare is nothing more than a lazy fake-out jump scare, and they are littered throughout the movie. I don't hate jump scares, they just need to feel earned, and I don't think this movie earns them. While the acting in this movie isn't the absolute worst acting I've ever seen, none of it is particularly good. The sad part is: the actress who plays the girl who vanishes can act. She's been in Oculus and Ouija: Origin of Evil. Granted, part of the problem could be that the writing gives them nothing to work with. There's a line near the beginning of the movie where one of the girls says she never sneezes because in the old times, people sneezing exercised demons. My reaction to that line was: "I think biology would say otherwise moron." I can't really say Slender Man ever really offended me. It made me mad, but only because it was dull and hollow, and was never very engaging. At least a movie that offends you can engage you in some way.

0 / 10     

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

image source

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is a prequel to the 2003 remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The film follows the origins of the character Leatherface (played by Andrew Bryniarski), and simultaneously deals with a group of so-called characters you don’t give a shit about as they try to survive Leatherface and his villainous family. I want to start with positives. R. Lee Ermey plays Laetherface’s father, and he’s great in the movie. He genuinely comes off as a threatening villain when he needs to. So, that was what I liked. Everything else just falls flat. The gore is there for the sake of gore. This is a movie that revels in the fact that it is vile, disgusting, bloody, and gross. I am not someone who takes issues with blood and gore by any means. This was too much even for me. The opening of the movie shows the birth of Leatherface in a slaughterhouse, and it shows the full birth in detail. The character development is thin to the point that these cardboard cutouts feel like they are far from actually being characters. The actors aren’t the worst, but they almost all fail to stand out among the pack. For this reason, I can’t bring myself to care or even feel invested when horrible things happen to our “heroes” in the movie. It also doesn’t help that there is no such thing as a fucking likable character in this piece of shit. Everyone has to be a bitch, an asshole, or a douchebag. This is something about horror movie remakes I never understood. It doesn’t make the characters more relatable. The fact that this movie is a prequel really hurts this movie too. If you saw the previous movie, you know exactly who is and isn’t in it, so that ruins the surprise. The editing in this is awful. It will cut from scene to scene, and it is almost always jarring. It literally cuts from as gruesome to death to the introduction of the main “protagonists” of the movie without warning. It makes transitions like this regularly throughout the movie. I hate the cinematography too. It has this butt-ugly snot-yellow look to it for most of the movie. Half the time, you can’t make out what’s even happening. The ending tries to pay homage to franchise as whole, but all that really does is make it feel legitimately insulting. This is one of the ugliest fucking things I think I have ever had the misfortune to watch. It isn’t the worst movie I have ever seen, but definitely is one of them. Even the great R. Lee Ermey couldn’t save this movie.

0 / 10   

I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer

image source

I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer came out in 2006, eight years after the second movie, and nine years after the first movie. To make things even better, this movie was released direct-to-video. Ugh. Let's get this shit over with. Four teenagers, Amber, Colby, Zoe, and Lance discuss the legend of the fisherman even though this movie's a "continuation" of the first two movies, I'll get to that later. So, the group of friends create a prank at an amusement park that leads to one of their friends dying. The group of unlikable idiots destroy the evidence and decide to keep this secret. Well, the first two movies had some shades of fun. This movie on the other hand SUCKS! It's a boring, plodding retread of the first film. At least, the second movie progressed the story of the first movie to some extent. The acting is atrocious on all accounts. I'm not gonna act like the characters in the first movie were the greatest people in the world, but at least those actors had charisma, at the very least. Remember how I said this is supposed to be a continuation? There’s a point where our main character is explained nf that her friend got the idea from newspaper reports of the first two movies. Great, why the flying fuck is the fisherman only a “legend” in this movie? In the first movie, the heroine was the one who said “we should go to the police.” In this thing, the one who throws that suggestion out there isn’t the protagonist, it’s the best friend you know is going to die by the end. The directing and editing are awful. This whole movie is cheap and ugly. The killer reveal is insanely stupid. The killer in this movie is a zombified version of the fisherman from the first two movies. This isn't really given explanation, especially when most of the movie is built up to be a murder mystery. But, at the end, they just sort of say fuck it, do this. I sat through this movie, trying to find one redeeming quality. As if I haven't said it enough, this movie is awful. I am someone that tries to go into any movie, hoping to like at least one aspect. That said, I couldn't find anything in this movie to enjoy. If you're curious, watch one of the first two movies. At least those two movies have some fun stuff.

0 / 10 

Fifty Shades Darker

Image Source

“I don’t like strangers gawking at you.” This is a line uttered by Christian Grey (played again by Jamie Dornan) after buying a gallery filled with pictures of his ex-girlfriend, Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson, also reprising her role). This happens before the fucking ten-minute mark. You know what, I didn’t think it was possible, but Fifty Shades Darker is actually WORSE than the first. At least the first movie tries to have some semblance of a plot. This doesn’t even have that. Apparently, the author of the books hated the first movie (which might actually give me a measly speck of respect for the first movie). She actually co-wrote the screenplay for this one. Not one character is remotely fucking likable. They’re all awful people who seem like they’re in a competition for worst character in the movie. Anastasia Steele is even more weak-willed and stupid this time around. This idiot questions how Christian was able to get her bank account numbers (and they actually play this up as charming). There are some SERIOUS red flags that should be raised in this moment. There is a point where our two leads are arguing. Christian (ever the stoic hero he’s held up as) yells at her saying: “For once, do what you’re told!” or something to that effect. The problem with this is that she has been doing what she’s told for the whole damn movie. They actually make you root for Christian Grey (something that shouldn’t fucking happen at all). The reason for this is because Anastasia’s boss objectifies women even more than Grey himself. I HATED everything about this piece of shit. Not one person gave a good performance (Admittedly, Dakota Johnson tries to give a good performance once again). Everybody comes off as awkward when they are trying to talk with one another. I am scared of the possibility that a movie could along this year that’s worse than this.

0 / 10