Scream VI relocates the Core 4 (who shouldn't have all survived Scream 5 but it's okay) to NYC to fill out the roster of new suspects and victims. They pepper in some OG returning favorites, and we're ready to rock.
Scream VI takes the blood and gore to the next level, but stays true to the Scream franchise. It rides the line of parodying horror tropes without being a parody, paying tribute to the franchise while expanding on it. The ending and the killer(s? no spoilers) surprised me while also making perfect sense.
Fingers crossed they get it together for Scream VII.
Favorite (Not Necessarily Best) Four From Every Year Since Birth
Recently Reviewed
4,613 reviews
Goodbye, Woodsboro. Hello, New York City.
As someone who was not a fan of <i><a href="https://boxd.it/o0lg" rel="nofollow">Scream</a></i> (2022), mostly due to mismanaged characters, implausible scenarios, and a group of teenagers who lacked a sense of emotion, I found this latest installment a breath of fresh air.
From beginning to end, this film is a nonstop rollercoaster ride. Sure, there are a few bits of downtime, but there's something always happening, especially in a city like Montreal... er, New York City.
I can write a lengthy review and point out both the strong points and flaws, but I'll get straight to the point: This film was great! It's a giant leap ahead of <i><a href="https://boxd.it/o0lg" rel="nofollow">Scream</a></i> (2022), and is now my favorite sequel in the franchise, knocking out <i><a href="https://boxd.it/Zmc" rel="nofollow">Scream 4</a></i>. The kills are fresh, twists both predictable and a few surprising, and Ghostface (singular or plural) is absolutely fuckin' brutal.
I was able to catch a screening in Real 3D, but definitely watch it on the big screen. You won't regret it.
-----
I rate films on a 1, 3, and 5 star scale. This movie was not perfect, so it didn't snag the 5-star status, but it was <b>very close</b>. However, if I ever have to sit through that Demi Lovato music video ever again, especially before a film, the rating goes down to a solid zero.
Over lit, and unimaginative. Amazing that this is from the same man that brought us things like the over stylized “Suspiria”. This looks more like Charles Band than Dario Argento.
I wanted to love Nope, but I thought it was just fine. I was interested in the characters, but the plot didn't consistently hold my attention. I do love the cast though, so I think I should give this a rewatch sometime.
The sitcom scene with the chimpanzee was wild though.
I wish I had a DeLorean time machine to protect me from watching this dreadful sequel.
Boyhood was filmed over 11 years, and that alone makes it interesting and special and unique. It is an amazing achievement. We watch two kids grow up and reach fictionalized versions of their milestones, and it's truly something magical. It is worth watching for this aspect regardless of anything else.
On the other hand, spanning that many years spreads the narrative a bit thin, and I was never fully invested in what was happening as much as I was invested in the overall trajectory. Moving forward a year so frequently interrupts the natural flow. It works sort of as a photo album fashioned into a movie.
I really loved Child's Play when I was young, so I was very excited at this fresh take on a toy that kills. Bonus points for the toy and the child being girls this time around. Shout out to Aunt Gemma for being a woman in STEM.
M3GAN is campy fun. The doll has very creepy movements, along with an iconic dance and a killer fashion sense. I was actually sort of rooting for M3GAN at certain points in the middle, when she was dishing old some cold hard karma.
This is definitely rewatchable and has earned a place in the Halloween rotation. I'm looking forward to the sequel!
Yes, it's a real film.
Yes, you can see an eency weency bit of effort was put into it.
Yes, you should avoid it.
Birdman might be the first time I've ever spent a movie being fascinated by camerawork. Essentially the whole thing looks like one continuous take. The full movie. It's wild.
Michael Keaton is on another level. He is so natural that it's like he's not even acting. He just is that person, being filmed. Edward Norton and Naomi Watts are excellent also, but Michael Keaton... Whew. From start to finish, I was engrossed.
I rewatched this because I mixed it up with Identity. I thought I was rewatching Identity, but it was 1408, and here we are.
I like John Cusack, and everybody likes Samuel L. Jackson, so I don't hold this against them. It just feels cheesy. It seems older than 2007, which I understand was almost 20 years ago, but other 2007 movies didn't age as poorly.
There are four endings to this, depending on where/how you watch it, and that is confusing.
I only watched this for Dianna Agron.
The Romantics is one of those "college friend group dates each other and now two are getting married and there's drama" movies, except they call themselves the Romantics because they are interested in the Romantic era. They could have just called the movie that and not made it something weird that they call themselves.
Katie Holmes, Anna Paquin, and Josh Duhamel are the main trio, and all three are unlikeable in various ways, so ultimately I didn't root for any of them. They shouldn't even be friends anymore.
The movie has an ambiguous ending, and this is not the type of movie that should be open-ended.
This was a confusing and wild ride.
I enjoyed the experience of watching Under the Silver Lake. I love Andrew Garfield, and the whole thing is visually very interesting. It takes place in 2011 but has a strong 70s aesthetic. A lot of weird things happen, and I was very invested in trying to understand it and follow what was happening.
Unfortunately, I didn't really succeed, and I was confused most of the time. Even Googling after didn't really clear it all up for me.
It looks great though.
