hannah

awesome movie. like others say, the alien is incredibly advanced and the science and biology that was used to make it believable were what made this movie terrifying. sure, i was a little horrified any time calvin darted around, sort of how i feel when a spider darts around, but it was the implication throughout the movie that was truly terrifying. as humans we've survived and thrived despite our weaknesses and handicaps because we've used our intellect to advance far beyond any other animal on earth. this little martian was outsmarting them at a frightening pace and it wasn't even evil; just witnessing how desperate it was to survive was simultaneously horrific and heartbreaking. as bummed as i am by the one direct death calvin caused, i mean -- the guy WAS trying to kill calvin with fire and all, so i can't blame the alien. humankind has done way worse in its time trying to survive.

the twist at the end was easy to predict but no less enjoyable than if it came as a shock. more than anything, i hope there's a sequel in which we learn more about how calvin's biology works and in which jake's character lives to struggle through adjusting to earth's atmosphere after well over a year. fingers crossed calvin plays nice with him.

man, i knew the general plot going in and the ending still hit me like a bag of bricks. i'm not crying there's just a tree branch in my eye. first this movie threw killer quotes at me like "if all i ever gave you was a hammer" "everything would be a nail", then it made me emotional about my own damn name.

the pacing and the atmosphere of the movie are something people are either going to love or hate. it's very much a movie about communication and thinking before acting, and the themes ring painfully true in today's global culture and political climate. so i think where you fall on the spectrum of opinions on national security, how countries ally themselves and what your own personal mentality is when it comes to fight-or-flight with the unknown will REALLY affect your perspective when you watch this film. the main stars were good—i love anything involving amy adams, to be fair—and i liked the stark contrast between the clinical approaches louise and ian took and their impulsive reactions and gut decisions. the supporting cast was believable to me; the impatience, ignorance and paranoia on the parts of the government and military. plus ian's skepticism that eventually bled into openness once he had what any cynical scientist wants—to see it to believe it. forrest played a convincing colonel who just wanted to deal with the threat like any other threat; i can't blame the man for not having the desire to sit through language acquisition with aliens time, language acquisition can be exhausting! but these were all things that felt real, and made it easy for me to connect with the characters. it lacks the action and thrilling suspense of some sci-fi movies, i'll admit, but from the very beginning it was clear that the movie wasn't trying for any of that. instead, it was poignant and surprisingly relatable for its genre. also there's nothing cooler in the universe than linguistics.

do you like video games but kind of suck at them if there's anything more than quick time events or turn based strategy? this movie is for you. it has all the excitement and thrill of a video game without you having to die a thousand times or restart at a save point another dozen. the acting was great, and the cgi done on the aliens was chefs kiss. seriously. kudos to all the actors making it feel like the aliens were actually, physically interacting with them. and best of all, the whitespikes were such a memorable and vivid design. i'd love to see the concept art by the art team, i think the last time i was this charmed by a monster it was clovie.

on the other hand: do you want total believability with no unexplained phenomena? this is not the movie for you. it's sci fi, it has aliens and time travel and not everything is completely plausible because let's be real here, time travel and contact with aliens haven't happened in reality and there's no telling how either of those things will occur, if they ever do. also, everything we know about how our universe works is theoretical, so if you struggle to enjoy sci fi because it doesn't feel realistic, just keep that in mind and maybe you'll have fun on the ride.

i rewatched this on a whim tonight; i'm not usually someone who rewatches movies that aren't franchises or animated classics, but i'm an enneagram six and my friends validated my thoughts of rewatching and here i am, best decision ever. i could've watched a b rate thriller or horror instead; i probably will next. but i'm glad i took the time to rewatch this. considering the plot, it's easy to think it wouldn't have the same effect knowing how it all wraps up in the ending (this review exposes me as someone who often does NOT read the book first, i'm sorry for who i am as a person) but it honestly was even more enjoyable this time around. something about knowing where the characters actually end up put me on the edge of my seat in anticipation.

that last bit about not reading the book first reminds me though—gillian flynn is an incredible writer. considering how well gone girl and sharp objects turned out, i have a feeling that not having her do the screenplay is what left dark places lacking. widows and utopia were already on my to watch list but they've moved up in priority after this revisit with gone girl for sure.

some things of note because i've made it a habit to point out things that half-assed critiques get wrong before saying what i actually think about a film:

1. this was not directed by jordan peele. he produced it. nia da costa directed it, and it has very much the same feel as her overall body of work. comparing this to get out and us is unfair to both peele and da costa.

2. the original candyman was a social commentary as well. a lot of slasher flicks are social commentaries with regard to topics aside from historical racism like disabilities, socioeconomic disparity, and mental illness. if you don't like social commentary in your horror? your horror options are pretty limited.

3. my advice is always this: if you can't enjoy a movie because it tackles subjects of inequality and oppression, then that's a you problem. it's a problem worth working through, all the same.

anyway, i loved this. so glad it was my first movie in theaters again since the pandemic started, it was highly worth it. the score was unsettling and stressful in just the right way, and fuck if the progression of the bee sting wasn't the most disgusting thing i'd ever seen. also: those of you who get really grossed out by trypophobia might want to avert your eyes a little in the church scene. the pattern is uniform, not irregular, but it's still real fucking weird.

the '94 animated classic was the first movie i ever saw in theaters, so i went in with an open mind and open heart; nostalgia was on my side but i knew nothing would replace the lion king that i grew up with. i was so excited for this movie, but not nearly as much for the fact that it's the lion king as the fact that it's a complete masterpiece that showcases how far we've come with digital effects and animation. i spent the entire movie constantly amazed by how real everything felt; i mean there were talking animals and the movement of the mouths felt as convincing as the rendering of waterfalls and the sand dunes under simba's feet.

did i miss the full be prepared song? sure. was i disappointed that the hyenas didn't giggle and stage whisper 'mufasa' to each other before the song hit? duh. but there were things in this movie that the original didn't have, and they worked. donald glover and beyonce duetting together was as bizarrely perfect as you could imagine it to be. seeing the aftermath of simba running away after the stampede is heartbreaking on a whole different level when you're an adult, and not a little kid. this scar is genuinely upsetting on a level that the original never quite was, most likely because he was less stylized and more gritty. the hyenas weren't quite as much a source of comedic relief but i definitely lost it when azizi called the cubs "a midnight snack". also, keegan michael key as a neurotic hyena who just wants his personal space? nothing has ever been more perfectly cast in the history of disney.

everyone cast in this version did the characters justice, and then some. but i think the accolades for this movie should absolutely go to the animators and effects artists; they brought real, genuine emotion and life to the eyes of completely digital animals, ones who weren't meant to be seen as cartoons or parodies of the real things. they made this movie feel so natural and authentic that you could start to believe you were watching a nature documentary - at least until zazu or timon come screaming across the screen anyway.

watch this first and foremost for the incredible graphics, and then for the cast that stayed faithful to the original while bringing new and memorable moments all the same. it does the remake thing the right way.

i liked this quite a lot for how it fits into the existing mcu. i think it's difficult to expect a lot of the comic canon to come through when the cinematic universe has always chosen to explore characters differently. plus, if you're a die-hard fan of any of these heroes or villains, you should have firsthand awareness that the story gets changed from artist to artist, writer to writer. the movies aren't going to be any different.

plus alexei makes a very good point about his own character arc (even if he's talking about gaining weight)—he's just been broken out of prison. i really don't think he's about to be even remotely badass.

also, the mcu black widow has had a great deal of vulnerability and attachment disorder built into the character over the phases, so if this not being about her being a heartless spy the entire time is a downer, like... the movie definitely isn't for you?

ANYWAY

florence pugh hands down was my favorite part of the film, with david harbour a close second. i already loved both of them in other work, and it's a solid cast overall, but they really brought it with these two characters.

"this is a much less cool way to die."

i'll give jim cummings the benefit of the doubt for his acting, especially because i've never seen his other roles and plus, his daughter's behavior mimicked his a lot in those last scenes - i think it was a purposeful choice and it worked. after all, his character isn't meant to be likable or sympathetic, he's a classic antihero. and if you haven't had the misfortune of meeting someone like that in real life, i'm sorry to tell you that they do actually exist to be that intolerable and inept. his characterization was distinct enough to feel intentional and therefore sincere, rather than generically bad acting, and i loved the character, in an "i have never wanted to duct tape a human being's mouth this badly before" kind of way.

the story was good, plot was fun and easy to follow. it's very fargo and twin peaks in mood, and i think a lot of the tag lines and info on the movie does it a disservice by characterizing it as a serious, dark kind of horror. if you do that to a movie that's comedic in nature, it ruins what everyone is expecting from the movie. it primes people to take things seriously instead of catching onto the joke, and that leaves a disappointing taste in a persons mouth even if the movie is legitimately great. and i think this movie is that! it's definitely not 100% original, but i think it fits its genre well and i enjoyed every bit of it.

another day, another movie by tom ford with abel korzeniowski composing that leaves me wondering what the fuck i just watched and how the hell to classify the way it made me feel. i mean, obviously it's an amazing movie. just not necessarily a ride my emotional processing skills were prepared for. jake was definitely my favorite of the cast but aaron taylor johnson did a great job and gave a performance light years beyond the roles he usually executes. amy was also amazing, playing a woman at times impossible to empathize with and at other times truly heartbreaking. the cinematography and score were perfect, duh. there were a couple of jump scares that worked surprisingly well and set the tone for the high intensity emotions involved in each situation, so they didn't feel out of place at all. most importantly, though, armie hammer was disgustingly beautiful during every single moment he spent on screen. an actual movie critic could probably say something to the way everything was filmed and how it made for a stark contrast between grit and polish, youth and age, and so on -- but i definitely have no leg to stand on there, so i stick to what i know and that's 'damn, armie hammer is a work of art'

as the boys on last podcast on the left said in one of my favorite episodes: it's RAPE. it's VERY EASY TO SAY. he's a RAPIST.

saving the rest for the read more.

anyway, this was good but also infuriating. early on you see footage of krombach's television interview after getting probation for drugging and raping a minor in his clinic and the things he says are fucking revolting. the footage from an entire auditorium of men holding political office just straight up laughing at spousal rape is disgusting. and then you have lawyers try to whine about due process for a man who said if a woman is silent she must want it, about a woman who again, WAS DRUGGED. and o h m Y g O d i thought finally, by the end the mom is seeing the truth, and then

AND THEN

she says she wishes krombach would've told her it was an accident and he panicked and accidentally killed her daughter, because she might have been able to understand and forgive him.

I JUST. WHAT.

and ffs i don't understand how in 2022 we're still calling rape "sex acts", or how rapists are just referred to as "perverts". i get that these were older people discussing a 40 year old case but also that doesn't get to be an excuse anymore, we're all too old and i'm too tired for this shit

spoiler tags for my opinions on some unanswered plot points. i didn't want to watch this following all the nonsense about the production, but it's a decent movie that would've felt more original about six years ago. i read the spec script 2 years ago and i like this interpretation of it. florence pugh is incredible to watch, it's worth it for her alone. she brought a lot of the same agony and terror to this role that she did her role in midsommar. honestly, solid acting across the board; the only real thing leaving a bad taste in my mouth is what came out about the production and olivia wilde's behavior.

there's plenty left unanswered and i'm pretty disappointed by the ending but it's faithful to the screenplay. some of the things i answered for myself:

why do people die irl when they die in the virtual reality: it's a sci-fi film involving technology far more advanced than any VR we have today. if a person has to be hooked into the system to be able to interact within it, and involves a significant degree of neurological function being either integrated into or controlled by said system, it stands to reason that a traumatic event in the system (i.e., dying) could lead to similar events in real life. this is easily explained away given that it's a trope in other sci-fi films with tech that involves hooking your consciousness up to something else.

why does frank's wife stab him: given what she said, and the "vision" alice has before waking up of jack asking her to stay with him, after he's dead, i suspect frank's wife was also involved in the project and was essentially saying he fucked up, and now she was going to try and keep alice from escaping. her attempt was definitely then a little more nuanced than just sending everyone after alice, but then alice makes her decision regardless.

why do they never revisit the remark about frank's bedroom: pretty sure he's talking about catching them having sex in his bedroom; it's a surprise to jack and one that he looks suspicious about because he didn't see frank, but alice did, hence her generally disgusted look and refusal to linger on it; it was meant to sound like something it wasn't and to me, it just read as alice being like "lmaoo so ANYWAY".

why did margaret's kid disappear: i think this was just an attempt at scaring the general female populace into not going out into the desert near headquarters, and to punish margaret. alternatively, margaret just had no investment in the child anymore because she realized nothing was real and so they... stopped expending technical power on an entire npc.

what was the plane: tbh this one i'm gonna be googling theories about bc i still have no clue. it might be like the earthquakes/lights shattering and just be the system's way of displaying an error or other issue?

what was the point: lmao if you have to ask you haven't seen the bullshit sad little men say on the internet with complete sincerity. anyone who believes that no one out there is deeply into the idea of shit like this or the handmaid's tale is living in a really nice bubble and i'm frankly jealous

having watched the original before this -- sequel's better, man. i don't know what the outrage over product placement is, unless product placement = all the intellectual property that wb owns? which again, capitalism. but they advertised nike about as much as the original did, and aside from something like e3 game camp being given lip service and the occasional electronics, the product placement was just acknowledgement of other wb owned franchises. and that's CUTE, not annoying. i love that they visited mad max world and lebron being a hufflepuff for a hot second was really endearing.

and is he the greatest actor? absolutely not. he's an incredible basketball player though so who cares? plus the other acting is solid, and i think both space jams highlight a big thing about acting: it's easier when you're working with other tangible people. when there's a lot of special effects to interact with, it takes a specific kind of person to make that believable. good actors aren't necessarily going to be just as good when everything is a green screen. michael jordan and lebron james both were a lot more convincing in their roles when they were interacting with other human beings -- and lebron also did better voice acting than a hell of a lot of other athletes have for video games, for that matter.

this was true feel good nostalgia for a kid who grew up with the original space jam. and it had a more cohesive story, more complete follow through on its jokes, and it was such a colorful delight to experience. if you were wowed by into the spiderverse, this gets kind of close (but obviously nowhere near) to that feeling.

first the tldr: good for a stream on hbo max just wear headphones or have a good sound system for maximum fun. as always the conjuring movies' greatest departure from the truth is always gonna be that ed and lorraine weren't just shitty con artists.

now the rest: have you ever noticed how once a man's played a sexual predator he continues to give those vibes no matter what role he gets afterward? except for patrick wilson. patrick wilson somehow ascended beyond that hard candy creep factor and it always amazes me.

if you like the conjuring series you'll probably enjoy this installment! it's got fewer scares and effects compared to the other two but it works for it, honestly. if you take out all the scenes where there was only one witness to something supernatural occurring, it sets it up well for the verdict in the movie; there's very little in the way of "real" proof for those not involved. i will say there are a few liberties taken to make the movie work the way they wanted to tell it, but like. it's a supernatural horror based on a real life pair of flim flammers. they're gonna have to take liberties to tell a good story.

onto the things that really mattered to me: patrick wilson lookin real fine for an early 80s man who suffered a heart attack and limps around a lot; vera farmiga looking very emotional even when it's a whole lotta bullshit; john noble being british and heartbreaking (rip fringe), and lastly the sound is So Good on hbo max. i have a samsung smart tv but no other speakers, so i used my headphones. they're a bluetooth pair off of amazon, they're not super expensive and i still managed to get creeped out more than once by how well the sound traveled from ear to ear and how much clarity there was for every single whisper and creak.

i watched this as a preteen in theaters and it set the tone for all horror films after—as in, if it was something my undiagnosed gad/ocd ravaged brain couldn't rationalize after three hours, then it was terrifying. i made the mistake of covering my eyes more than once, which i now know as an adult is far more scary than anything that someone else manages to put on film. so sufficed to say, my first experience was a memorable one, and also, my friend had someone prank me and call my (lil blue nokia brick) cell phone as we walked out of the theater, so like, i have trust issues with movies, what about it?

anyway i've put off rewatching it for years because i just felt like it wasn't going to be any less scary, despite such wonderful additions to my daily routine like zoloft, and therapy. netflix having it available to stream ended up being enough temptation and here i am on the other side. i regret covering my eyes so much; i missed a lot of great storytelling that i probably would've appreciated, and the jump scares were honestly not that bad. i did still startle at that fucking centipede, man. millipede?? who cares. naomi watts is so pretty to look at, the movie does a great homage to the japanese horror genre (unlike a lot of remakes that followed in its footsteps) and the acting is all around solid. i think for any other millennials who watched this before or during puberty, the second watch is worth it—it wasn't exactly the terrifying suspense that preteen me thought it was, but it was fun to revisit it and actually experience the movie.

watched on a whim because amazon prime recommended it to me, and i was pleasantly surprised. i usually go into thrillers with no expectations so i can enjoy them no matter the overall quality, and that probably benefited this one. the acting is solid, and the dynamic between the two leads is believable. it takes a plot that's been done before and gives very little backstory to either the protagonist or the antagonist aside from a dream sequence of the player's daughter and the implication that the game master does, in fact, have a son too.

a lot of movies would fail with this setup because of very little investment in either character and a sensation of having seen this sort of thing play out again, but the fact is the movie plainly tells you in the plot summary that the game master has ulterior motives to the whole "play this game and win cash from nameless faceless wealthy people" trope. you know going in the only detail that's ever been a twist in the other movies of this particular storyline which makes it more enjoyable.

i also liked that the player wises up quickly; a big pet peeve of mine in similar movies and escape room tropes is the persistent ignorance on the part of the participants that there's no possible way they've signed up for something falsely advertised. this woman was suspicious from the start and that was not only relatable but also made her easier to root for even with very little backstory to round her out as a character. this felt a little less like a full blown movie and more like an episode of a solid horror anthology, which there have been a few of lately. not necessarily a movie that gets a rewatch but definitely worth the first viewing.

i've got this unavoidable compulsion to watch all movies in a shared universe when i want to rewatch a single one, or see ones i missed. while my marvel rewatch is on pause i decided to catch up on all the dceu movies since the wonder woman sequel will be streaming on hbo max. prior to this proper rewatch i'd only seen suicide squad (the movie chosen by one of my old english school's winning class for a christmas tree competition iirc) and recently birds of prey. i wasn't exactly disappointed by suicide squad since i'm not a big dc comics fan in general but i definitely thought it was overhyped at the time and didn't come close to what it could've been. knowing the director's original vision this time around makes me think that this movie is substantially better than it gets credit for in terms of critical reception. i think ayer's vision is easy to imagine if you watch the movie knowing it was never meant to have comedic effect so much as just some darkly comedic lines here and there. the joker and harley would have benefited from the same background treatment that deadshot was given, which i hear the extended cut gave them. my first watch of suicide squad left me wanting none of the joker but the second watch with context and less of the immediate hype surrounding it back when it came out makes jared leto's interpretation a lot more palatable.

let's be real though viola davis is the greatest villain of all time OF ALL TIME. and i was glad to read that idris elba's being given the role of bloodsport in the upcoming soft reboot, as will smith's deadshot is absolutely my favorite of the bunch in this rewatch and i would watch a reprisal of his any day.

i can't really say i enjoyed this film, because it was really uncomfortable. like, the feeling of dread about how things were developing was hard to set aside, even knowing this was a piece of fiction. i finished high school long after columbine but well before the age of school shootings happening every week, or more, and the most traumatic thing that happened at my school was a lockdown because an armed gunman from a nearby robbery cut through our campus in an attempted escape. and that time we had a bomb threat, that was kind of scary.

anyway, even being pretty removed compared to the generation after me, this was hard to be able to find comedic value in. there are funny moments, but it's not a funny film. the high schoolers are believable, and so are the teachers. i'm glad owen was able to come out of his shell, i guess? and matt is a truly convincing character—in that he's kind of a shell of a person, whose personality is wholly constructed around the movies that he enjoys. i love kevin smith and he doesn't usually steer me wrong but idk i could've lived my life easily without ever seeing this.

probably wouldn't watch this again but the acting was great and it has the grungey 90s thriller vibe that it was going for in spades, with the addition of sharply hd imagery. this is less a movie about the hunt for a killer and more a movie about the way law enforcement can become consumed by things in cases that don't even propel them forward. rami malek did a great job making me care about the la county sheriff, that's a tall order. both protagonists are haunted, heartbreaking characters that the actors bring to life perfectly, and jared leto is finally playing someone as unbearable as he is irl so that's a great casting choice too. editing is occasionally odd but honestly with the pandemic i go into new movies expecting to suspend a little disbelief regardless of whether they filmed during 2020 or not.

all in all an enjoyable watch but still a bit forgettable even with the solid cast. last point though: did they NEED to go through the pains of talking about serious decomp only to show the victim julia with better complexion than me on a sleep deprived monday? like. just don't make a point about how disastrous the body is gonna look if it's not going to actually pan out that way.

i get why the movie's pg-13; even if the game wasn't geared at a younger audience, it still became massively popular with them. i've never played the games but i really like watching letsplays by content creators i follow and this movie was entertaining and fun by those standards. it definitely wasn't at all scary and was very light on jump scares, but it was decently acted (unsure why anyone says it wasn't, matthew lillard's in it come ON) and the story kept me engaged. i liked the cameos and man the best choice they made was having the animatronics be real puppets and not cgi. i wish more movies would use practical effects tbh.

the sticking points for me are really small and probably dumb to the average viewer but i've always resented the way that people treat prescription medication in movies and tv. it's reckless and maliciously ignorant sometimes and perpetuates a lot of stupid misinformation about mental health. and it's happened in this movie (a character just throwing someone's sleeping pills into a lake - but whatever maybe in 2000 it was easier to get an early refill on an rx) and another one in 2022 (portraying a daily antidepressant as something you can pop casually whenever you need it) so it's clearly a problem that's still alive and well. also that pharmacist should be fired

according to my trakt history, i've seen this before. i don't know that i have, because i didn't recognize any of it, aside from the relatively similar events as the real life likens case. that said, i have a hard time watching this without comparing it directly to the movie an american crime. both are upsetting, but an american crime's acting is more intensely so (and that honestly may just be due to elliot page's acting skills?) and the changes made from the original book's plot (jack ketchum's) lessened the movie's impact. the decision to have the police officer come in prior to meg's passing was a directorial disaster; i don't care if it was the 50s, i do not see how his decision to take susan upstairs and out of the house and leave david behind with a dying girl was at all realistic.

i will say that this movie benefits from having a relatively decent protagonist. as in, there is a character that clearly does not condone what's happening and is young enough that his silence makes sense; his attempts to speak to his parents seem minor, but given what he's witnessed and the fact that there's an adult involved in what's happening, it does make sense. the sad thing is that there were entirely too many people who weren't too young to do something and intervene, both in this fictionalized version of the story and the actual likens case. so it's a very, very tiny bandaid on a very depressing look into humanity.

neither are enjoyable movies, obviously. the likens case is deeply disturbing, and one i heard about entirely too early on in my life thanks to having a mother obsessed with true crime and incapable of parenting. i have always had an uncomfortable fascination-and-revulsion over it and i don't feel any less unsettled having watched this adaptation than i did prior to watching it. i would suggest to anyone interested in the likens case that you go read the court documents. the real testimony about what sylvia went through is truly difficult to stomach, but it's ultimately what made me stop being preoccupied by the case.

i don't think this movie ripped anything off; it uses some tropes very well done in the past but at the end of the day it's as inventive as anything can be in 2023, aka when we've done literally every idea to death and all that's left is to adapt other media that hasn't been made into tv or movies yet. it's not a groundbreaking movie but in terms of sci-fi thriller it's engaging and entertaining. the twists are fun minus the mid-credits scene—it feels like it's setting up for a sequel that no one wants or needs and i thought we'd done away with that kind of thing after horror movies beat it to death.

tl;dr: it's a fun watch for its genre. comparisons are fine but don't discount a movie because it shares some tropes with blockbusters.

another movie i'm loosely reminded of is the first dr. strange given the whole time-and-space reality bending thing the big bad could do. yes, inception had a similar "construct" concept but that took place in dreams, in the subconscious—not in physical space after resetting someone's brain. do i think inception did the construct thing more innovatively? absolutely. do i think christopher nolan owns the entire concept of constructed scenarios to alter human perception? no. also, christopher nolan is doing great and has a fuck ton of money, he doesn't need anyone to white knight him.

1. full disclosure, i haven't read the source material
2. if like me you haven't read it just know the dog dies
3. worth watching for tom holland and daisy ridley's performances tbh

for a dystopian film (of which i have watched entirely too many) this is pretty solid and its massive budget makes it a very beautiful watch. i agree about a lot of the complaints about it being what must be a very dumbed down version of the book but like... as someone who grew up with books like the giver, i really feel like there's no way to do some sci-fi cinematic justice. like the recent dune adaptation definitely did its source material justice, but it was also extremely fucking long and my friends who aren't familiar with the source material thought it was boring as fuck, SO. trade offs, i think. and since i haven't seen the source material for this movie, i do think i was able to enjoy it more than a fan of the books might, since it was cut down under 2 hours and told an abridged version of what must be some substantial world building. i love sci-fi so i have no problem filling in the gaps left in the storytelling, personally.

this is a movie for kids so the rewatch as an adult was a little less delightful than the nostalgia of it is. still, it's cute. i will say the number of times that r kelly's i believe i can fly played didn't age well.

also, for 1996 the way that the movie's effects were rendered was really enjoyable! it's nowhere near what cgi does now, but it was never that hard to suspend disbelief about the real characters interacting with cartoons.

one major con—the pacing of the movie is much worse than i remembered. granted, i was 7 when i saw it. but there are a lot of jarring moments where scenes cut out and jokes occur without any lead up or even context.

i watched this ahead of the sequel just for a refresher and i've already read that a major point of contention for the new one is the amount of product placement, but like... first of all, this is what capitalism is, it's the commodification of literally everything and that includes entertainment. but more importantly, i have a feeling there are a lot more applicable products to give advertising rights to in 2020 than there were in 1996? like, they definitely advertised themselves (wb) and namedropped things like nike and gatorade plenty, and the nba got a lot of exposure in terms of non sports fans. i also had the world's cutest space jam chuck taylors as a kid so even if they didn't rely heavily on the product placement in 96 they more than made up for it in merchandising.

i haven't read the book but i have a feeling that the changes made for the screenplay didn't actually serve the format any better than the original writing would have. the plot is highly convoluted but not in a fun, keeps-you-guessing sort of way that an unreliable narrator tends to do in book form; i think that knowing anna's past clearly as a viewer from the start would have made the rest of the movie much more enjoyable, since then you can empathize more and focus on the present day mysteries. the way the movie was presented was a bit off, and i think that some of the choices in how to film some scenes could've been done in a way that wasn't so strange and off putting. to be clear, there's unsettling and off putting moments in a movie that are designed to throw you off and make you feel anxious, and that's great. but these moments missed the ball and just left me feeling a little bit like i was suffering bad side effects right along with anna.

having said that, it's still a watchable film and good if you're looking for something plot twisty on netflix. the cast does a great job acting, and amy adams and gary oldman's fight was chefs kiss tbh.

absolutely most important thing of note: the content warnings for the rating (at least on hbo max) include rape. not sexual assault, rape. while i admittedly lost interest in the movie once or twice, i feel confidently able to say that there were no scenes of what rape encompasses. what does rape mean? glad you asked, here you go:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

that said: anyone who has issues with scenes of sexual assault, there is a scene where a female character's chest is groped to a possibly painful degree, and not at all with any kind of consent.

there are also a number of scenes involving the threat of sexual violence, and one where a male character physically (but not sexually) manhandles a female character without explanation or consent in order to prevent another male character from acting on a threat of sexual violence. this is explained after, but the behavior is not excused at any point by the female character. there are also sexual situations with consent established, none of which are exceptionally graphic considering it's pg-13.

now, i've said all of that because i feel like it's important to know what kind of movie you're going into. however, if you see the warning for rape and decide you don't want to watch the movie, i mean... you're not missing out? so does it really matter? probably not. but i wrote it out, so there you go.

actual review:

best scene: colin farrell tucking dozens of toddlers in goodnight.

it was watchable, but that's about it. colin farrell was the best part (will he ever be anything less than beautiful, no) and tye sheridan and lily-rose depp did what they could with the plot they were given.

the other commenter calling it a poor man's lord of the flies is fair. what messages did i get from the movie?

well, first, the writers have a very rosy mental image of how it feels to be bodyslammed by puberty and growth hormones. everyone was still super cgi smooth while going through it and i have an issue with that because i'm 32 and the slightest change in my hormones gives me a chin breakout.

and second, all the "science" is garbage. literally none of it can be accepted even with the strongest suspension of disbelief i can muster.

lastly, the only real lesson to take away: there are ethical guidelines in place regarding human subjects for a reason, this is one of those reasons.

my main reaction: no matter your opinion of the movie, read the book this was based on if you haven't yet. it was far more frightening (and gory! so gory!!!) and the storytelling decisions made were well-executed, if much more traumatic.

rest of my thoughts below:

this was acted well and looked beautiful. that's actually what's kind of annoying. like, i even liked dave bautista's performance, and his acting is hit-or-miss for me (and i think the rest of the world probably). everyone else was amazing too, and jonathan groff was especially reminiscent of the book eric.

and i get that movies can't always be faithful to the books they adapt. i think adaptations can coexist with their source material, too, regardless of how closely they stick to it. (the last of us is a good example; it generally replicates the original video game while still making major changes that make sense and play out authentically.)

i guess the issue for me is that the changes here took away what made the cabin at the end of the world the story that it was. paul tremblay wrote things in that book that i honestly never expected an author to write. he made decisions that are taboo in fiction and they worked. and to be fair, one of the coolest things in the book is how he changes the perspective near the end from third to first, to a bizarre amalgamation of both that actually worked. that's not something a movie can replicate, so i wasn't expecting that to be portrayed. but i was expecting the same terror the book gave, because the movie was marketed as a horror. i hadn't seen the trailer, but i had friends say it was scary. the movie wasn't. it just—was what it was. maybe it was kind of a thriller? kind of a drama? it didn't manage to give me the same fear response the book did, and i think that is at minimum something it should have achieved.

some of the changes were also just confusing. for example, it wasn't clear until one of the final scenes why on earth andrew's occupation needed to be changed to human rights attorney. and the ending. oh, the ending was disappointing. i understand why certain decisions weren't kept; it would've been a hard movie to stomach. but even so, man, i don't know why we couldn't have kept the open-ended part of the conclusion. i normally hate when stories do that (as someone with severe anxiety, that shit used to be rumination bait) but it worked for this story. god. so many things were confirmed that should've been left up to interpretation.

also: not nearly gory enough. i've read some reviews that the violence in this movie is intense—maybe it's just because i'm comparing it to tremblay's VERY vivid descriptions of gore, but this was tame. it cuts away from every act of violence and relies on sound alone to give you the knowledge that someone has been injured.

was it worth watching? sure, it was fine. but it's not worth a rewatch and it told a lesser version of the story the cabin at the end of the world told. if you hate reading, that probably boosts its value, but if you like reading, go read the book.

no clue if it's the movie itself but the audio isn't always synced and it's really irritating.

the cinematography is nice, but as apple likes to point out, you can film some really nice shit on your phone these days so i can't say i'm THAT impressed. the score has terrible timing, there's no clear transition between scenes (even with the found footage aspect it feels bizarre, especially since it's only partially found footage). the acting isn't the worst (trust me go watch some of the other falsely inflated horrors on imdb then this feels oscar worthy) but having two of the three leads being hit or miss with their acting makes it hard to suspend disbelief for very long. einar has a few good moments when he's yelling at mark, but otherwise his emotions feel insincere, helen is operating at a solid mediocre and mark was the only one who was convincing throughout the film. he is exactly what a neurotic friendzoned cameraman nerd would act like in this situation and frankly i only finished the movie for him.

a few funny quotes and not so awful that i couldn't finish it, but overall it just misses the mark. the director probably needs to work on how they interact with their actors because i have a feeling from einar's performance that he's likely a good actor when given good direction. and the screenwriter needs to figure out what the fuck they were even writing and get an editor to help them with transitions and plot points.

i find it strange that the director of this film reportedly claimed that though this was intended to be based on the manson murders that it wasn't actually being directly named.

because i could see there being a decent horror about a home invasion loosely inspired by the real life manson cult story. i mean, something in the vein of the strangers but make it ari aster would be something i'd watch. and while no ones claiming ryan murphy is a moral compass for the ages, he's done a fairly decent job of balancing the exploitation of true crime for entertainment with original content and twists (i mean i think i wrote a group therapy session among different fictional villains once and the serial killer dinner party in ahs hotel was basically the grownup version of that but STILL). so there's space for horror based in truth.

this was not loosely inspired by the tate murders. this took an entirely real, terrible tragedy with awful consequences and pasted it into a film with pretty people. having a mid credits roll that shows the actual photos of the people and reviews the aftermath isn't "loosely" following reality. this movie took everything down to the type of restaurant that the friends ate at prior to the murders and put it in their film, and then they tried to spin it for entertainment with a former scream queen lead and a scene basically making light of the fact that the groundskeeper didn't hear a single sound because he was listening to music. i don't understand who does that and thinks it's not exploitative.

don't watch this. i watched for the leads, expecting a very loose manson connection and a campy horror. instead i got a weird 4k hd reenactment of the tate murders wikipedia entry that left me unhappy and vaguely wanting a shower. i don't honestly know how two women with successful television careers would agree to a film as shitty as this, it's not like they're in desperate need for work.

long story short - this movie isn't technically about ted bundy, so much as the woman in love with him before his crimes came to light. and as long as you know that, it's a great film with great acting. in particular, lily collins shows suffering that's impossible not to empathize with, and zac efron has that look in his eye that you've probably seen at least once or twice in your lifetime that leaves you feeling a little cold and naked.

things i think are important going into this movie:
• know about ted bundy's crimes and the overall timeline of his trials and incarceration
• remember that this is based on a memoir of the ex-girlfriend that the movie follows, not simply based on ted bundy's crimes
• know that the title is not a tagline for the plot but a specific part of a quote from the judge who convicted bundy in florida

if you go in knowing these things, the movie is enjoyable. if i went in with only a vague knowledge of the cases involved and the man himself, and didn't know about the actual circumstances of this film, i'd probably be confused and kind of annoyed.

if you're angry about this movie romanticizing ted bundy: it doesn't. if you watch the movie and feel like that, then you missed the entire point. he was an everyday guy next door and this movie is about the damage that knowing someone and caring about someone like ted bundy can do to a person who was truly innocent at the end of the day. it's not about ted bundy being a rockstar or unfairly targeted; the entire movie is about liz and the parts of ted bundy that ted bundy showed her. this glosses over the gory details of his case because of the perspective of the film, not because of any disrespect toward the people who suffered at the hands of ted bundy. if anything, this is the least exploitative piece of media to come out of the ted bundy case.

if you're interested in hearing it from the horses mouth himself: watch the ted bundy tapes. i personally got bored an hour in because i don't like listening to ted bundy or any other narcissist talk about themselves for a prolonged period of time, but it is certainly interesting in the way that the staircase and similar shows are.

if you're interested in the gory details of the crime: it's not here, at all. look for the true crime specials on ted bundy, and check out resources like podcasts and websites like murderpedia. you're not going to get your "gore fix" from a piece of mainstream media. like the hannibal tv series rarely showed lecter committing acts of violence, this movie does not show bundy's crimes save for a scene at the end which was shown in the trailer, anyway.

and that scene is honestly the greatest - not the flashback itself, but the visit between liz and ted before his execution.