Not quite sure of the connection to The Exorcist tbh, save for some of the music, apparently. Just a regular possession story. But hey, Aunt Lydia is saving girls again, so I guess that's a small win.
I felt like at times it reaches beyond the fourth wall with the comments and remarks that probably meant to "explain" things to the "normies", as opposed to just being a plain joyride for the "nerds". Starts off a little slow, and there are some eyeroll moments later on as well, but the cast manages to shine through and make it a fun experience.
The fact that Hugh Grant, nearly two decades later, is basically playing Daniel Cleaver again, this time injected into a Master of Laketown - that alone is absolutely hilarious. And of course, Michelle Rodriguez is always great.
Tbh, I had it playing in the background so I might've missed a few bits here and there but... Seriously, do we ever actually learn what The Bad Guys:tm: even wanted? Because I can't recall any of that at all. Sure, one can substitute in generic puzzle pieces, but that shouldn't be the go-to solution to rely on. Geez.
This is a tough one. Obviously, the subject itself is a heavy and important, sadly still very relevant, in many ways timeless. And the victims taking their fate into their own hands is always a great display of strength. Those are a given.
Having said that, I don't think as a movie it works. It starts very in medias res, indeed the very first sentence is about how the story ends before a child is born. It never really establishes a setting in any way, and when it does, it's still woefully inadequate. Perhaps it's a way to underline the timelessness of the subject, but I found it's more distracting than clever. We never know who these women are. We never know where they are. Indeed, we wait quite a bit before we even learn when they are - and when we do, it throws us for another loop, rewriting what we've probably already accepted as a setting in our mind. It never shows anything of the act, indeed the perpetrators are absent almost throughout the entire time (and when they aren't, things are still offscreen). It never tells us that it's a story based on true events, which would at least somewhat put our brains on standby, how it's told is not as important as what is being told. But then, even if it did, those real events having happened in an ultraconservative Mennonite colony? In Bolivia? For most of us, it's even further detachment still. As such, perhaps instead of all the omissions in an attempt to strip away most of the setting, just a direct dramatisation of those actual events would have worked better: just tell the story of what happened then and there, placing everything in its proper setting, instead of letting the audience try to piece those (non-existent) details together. And for all that, it ends up feeling rather long, too, that whole "going around in circles" impression is there: despite the supposed urgency to make a decision, they get bogged down on the way quite a lot.
I don't know. I feel like I would love to see a stage play version of this. Women talking. Just that. Nothing else. No flashbacks, no cuts to external scenes, no smart/tricky cinematography and digital filters. Just the women in a sparse hayloft set, discussing the events and what to do next. I feel like that would actually be phenomenal - that part, the acting itself, is pretty great here as well, after all, credit where it's due. As a movie, though, with all the artistic changes and probably directorial decisions... it's unfortunate. As significant and heavy as the larger general subject matter is, I don't think this movie does it any justice.
That's a lot of riding on the coat tails of two major classics of cinema that basically only serve as the rail track towards a trainwreck of a messed up intercourse followed by a confused (confusing?) awakening of yet another Sad Teen:registered::tm: stuck at the edge of the edge of nowhere. And holy smokes, the "development hell" this movie's been through, it's barely saw a wider public release and it already feels old and dusty on top of all that. Geez.
Jennifer Coolidge is 10/10, if the movie is worth watching at all, it's for her. Because the rest is kinda cookie cutter. A touch more over the top with the gore-y bits than one would expect from a flick like this, I guess, but that's it.
I wanted to like this, but somehow it... never quite seems to get going. A few things happen, and then just like that it's already over. One would think, considering what a central figure he is, the grandpa's death is some sort of key turning point, yet it manages to feel utterly weightless. Similarly, the separation of the two friends isn't as dramatic as it ought to be either, perhaps because their relationship is never built up quite that well in the first place, nor do we really get a sense of where things would go. While it does get portrayed on several occasions, there isn't that much actual sense of "inequality and prejudice" either, which ends up being simply frustrating. My feeling is it's because many of the surrounding elements are also either weightless themselves, or just unrealistic and nonsensical.
Coming of age stories shouldn't necessarily be lukewarm and bad - all they need is a point to make at the end, or an actual story to tell. Here, I was missing both. There is some nice atmosphere, where we might indeed feel like we're taken back in time, to some degree at least, but it's just not enough. For something with armageddon in its title, I expected an impact: for better or worse, the end of the world seems to have been cancelled, this time.
Why why WHY ON EARTH would you introduce a new character in what's supposed to be the conclusion of a story? I mean, a new character shouldn't be an issue in its own, but in this particular way? Felt like there was some real fighting going on in the background as to who the real protagonist should be here, because the new kid is being pushed so much into the limelight I really had a hard time trying to decide. And not just in any story either, but in a well-established franchise with such an iconic/notorious main character.
Two sins in this one, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't feel like a Halloween movie - Michael has so little screentime, especially when coming from the first and second movie, it feels like he was downgraded to a side character. Again, in what's supposedly the final chapter of his story. The second being - it doesn't even feel like a horror flick. Those gears take so much time to start to turn and grind, I was getting worried I'd fall asleep before they kicked in. The previous two entries, for all their faults and missteps, had those boxes checked, got the important parts right. They felt like a unit, going together, basically back to back. This also one starts out with some weird setting and time skips that basically displace you right from the start - at least the shift in focus to drama that follows continues to keep you at a distance.
Really disappointing.
Here's my biggest issue: I don't know who can take this "diet" version of Lady Gaga for a witch seriously these days. One that wants to hear - scary stories, at that. The way she's bored and annoyed by the details Alex gets wrong, probably because he's never been taught any of those in the first place, I'd say she can't even take herself seriously. Maybe a more prominent actress could've done the character justice, but Krysten Ritter just wasn't it. Once you get past this... Both the plot and the pacing just meander every which way. It's a shame, because when it has a little time, the movie does manage to grow a certain atmosphere, and maybe, just maybe, if this had been released a little later, it could've been a nice Halloween flick for the kids. In some way, it did give me a sort weird Hocus Pocus spinoff/remake vibe.
A bit of Pirates of the Caribbean (particularly 4 and 5), a bit of Indiana Jones, and a dash of that good old-fashioned Mummy - I think it's a great mix that's just perfect for the summer to switch off for two hours and simply enjoy something fun. That's mostly what this movie feels like: fun. Which fits well, considering where it got the inspiration/idea from, actually.
Some people do need to learn not to take everything too seriously, perhaps re-learn how to just be a child again and let the movie take them in. Granted, in a rather ironic way, I do agree with a certain point some of these same people bring up: some companies should indeed learn some restraint when it comes to CGI.
But overall, it's a thoroughly enjoyable little (time)travel. It's out there to entertain, not to make one think or reflect or analyse. And in that it succeeds quite well indeed.
On the surface? It features both Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo - as a fan of the originals, that's awesome to see. And in one of the main roles, there's Christina Applegate - having practically grown up on Married With Children, I could not say no to this. Even Michael Peña makes an appearance, another actor I really like.
But then the movie actually starts, and... Something's definitely missing. The humour feels rather forced for the most part, and the chemistry isn't there that much either. Not only that, but so many elements that are just way too crude and explicit for a "family movie" - not that it's actually meant to be one of course, but still... I mean, the originals had a few risque moments too, however I don't think the four together had as much explicit material as this one. (And though Debbie Do-Anything is perfect to be considered Kelly's college persona, if she'd ever gone to college, it's just a little too much here.)
Overall it drags on for what feels like too long, because it just lacks the charm and wit. There are a few laughs to be had, but they're too few to make up for the shortcomings.
