One thats been on my ‘to watch’ list for longer than it really should have been. I’ve owned ‘Def by Temptation’ on VHS, DVD and Bluray over the years, and not one copy i’ve owned has ever left its cellophane…until tonight, when I finally DID pop my lovely crystal clear ‘Vinegar Syndrome’ copy in, and im SO glad I did.

The film follow cousins ‘Joel’ and ‘K’. Joel is the last surviving member of his families bloodline, and has decided to enter ministry, as his grandma has told him she foresees a time when he’ll become a world famous reverend who’ll change the world. Joels a country boy used to a slower, simpler way of living, and as his training draws to a close, he decides he wants to ‘test’ himself by going to visit his cousin ‘K’ in New York.

K fully embraces the headonistic lifestyle of a 20 something in downtown NY, he drinks, chases women, parties, blows LARGE quantities of money on fashion and pursuing his dream of being a famous film maker, but first and foremost, hes almost like a brother to Joel. And wants to ensure that his first visit to the big apple is a fun, but safe one.

Enter ‘Temptation’; a vampiric, succubus demon from hell, who stalks the dive bars around NY preying on horny, vulnerable men to enhance her strength and life energy. Temptation is capable of horrendous things, things that she personally enjoys tremendously. and after pulling a few cheaters, adulterers and skeezy types, she eventually finds K, who is VERY much about to become her next victim…until he tells her he has to go home early for the night because of Joels visit the next day…She understands. but keeps that information in mind.

The next day, Joel arrives, and its a fun time for all as K tries to better integrate Joel into the city lifestyle…he even suggests they hit a bar, promising the ‘Tee Total’ Joel that he can just grab a milk if he really wants…they head to the local, and while K sorts some things out, Joel heads in and almost immediately hits it off with a woman who manages to utterly captivate him…that woman, is Temptation.

K laughs it off, thinking Temptation and Joel are pulling some kind of prank on him…but it quickly becomes apparent when Temptation essentially pretends shes never met K and REALLY goes all in to seduce Joel, that these two arnt messing around, and K is simultaineously confused and angry. He tries to vaguely tell Joel this is a bad idea, but he just assumes K is jealous and continues to fall down the rabbit hole…

And after a confrontation between K and Temptation reveals she’s DEFINITELY not of THIS earth…K seeks help to try and vanquish the demon, stumbling on a man named ‘Dougie’ who may hold the key to vanquishing the evil, before she claims her next victim…

I suppose my only disclaimer for anyone getting into this film is, if that particularly aggressive form of late 80s, early 90s fashion and culture is an irritant to you (and I know MANY people for whome Vanilla Ice, The 90s super mario bros movie, MC Hammer and that whole casual minimalist 90s fashion movement is an allergen) you’ll probably be turned off this movie HARD. because its SO steeped in that specific times aesthetic as to be all consuming. Im hit or miss with it, but for me it fell just on the right side, but I could easily see folks being turned off by that alone.

If you do persevere though you’ll find a pretty rock solid film that I went in pretty much blind to and came away largely surprised by.

The scripts a little bit patchy in places, I really enjoyed the core premise, It was kind of what I imagined ‘Fright Night’ was going to be before I watched ‘Fright night’. I like the idea of two people with minimal experience in the unknown, attempting to save someone from that unknown and getting WAY in over their heads on it. but I suppose the biggest issue I have with this one is simply that its quite slow going to begin with.

We spend a lot of the opening of the film getting a feel for ‘Temptation’, who she is, what she does and why she does it. and while I think showing that once or twice in the first act is a good way to set up the threat K and Joel are going to be dealing with, I feel the film goes overboard on it, showing 3-5 killings that are prolonged and, while they’re very well handled, I feel like the film would have benefitted to spread them out a bit more across the runtime because, these arnt brief sequences…They run on for a while, and combining those scenes with a LOT of overexplanation on who everyone is, why they’re doing what they’re doing, while also setting up some of the second act elements, left me kind of struggling to stay focussed on the film because it felt like it was getting itself into a bit of a cyclical rut.

Mercifully; once that first act clears, it has a good momentum going and it hits the ground. RUNNING! blasting through its second and third acts with absolute ease and relishing the story its trying to tell. The pacing past that first act is tremendous, giving the audience just enough to keep it guessing, but never fully giving the whole game away, and I think thats one of the best qualities an ‘unknown evil’ style film can do.

The films absolutely a dark horror piece, but they do throw in some really nice grounded comedy moments here and there. Nothing too overt, but just subtle moments that make you feel like these are real people dealing with something they have no idea how to percieve…So yes, they will use comedy to deflect from the absolute terror from time to time…and I think that offers a really nice contrast to the bleaker moments here, helping to better shape out the script and keep the audience from flavour fatigue.

the characters are all fairly well rounded. everyone involved gets a decent chunk of backstory, they all feel fleshed out enough that you can be invested in them, and care when bad things happen. with even the side characters getting at least SOME history to work with, which I think is a really nice touch. The dialogues Solid too, with a naturalistic flow with only a few scarce moments where I felt like these characters were given lines that, I felt played against type. Joel seems to get the biggest share of dialogue that didnt quite sit right to me personally, but Im not sure if those moments were just because the character is a little bit prone to playing against what we’re introduced to, or if he was just the more likely to get lines that explain things as a result of rewrites.

all in all? barring a slow first act, this is a very nicely crafted, solid piece of work that feels like it had a lot of attention and thought put into it, that kind of surprised me, because it didnt have to be as well written and solid as it ultimately has ended up being.

The directions pretty solid too, James Bond III (Roger moore…) has done a phenominal job bringing a very unique vision to the screen, we have a grungy, colourful and often woozy feeling production on our hands that I think tells the story in a way only James ever could have. I dont feel like a studio grade director or a bigger budget would quite be able to nail that kind of sincere tone that James has managed here with his vision. it showcases 1989 New York in a very distinct way and James clearly worked VERY closely with the crew and cast to ensure that this landed EXACTLY how he wanted it to. its superb in my opinion, and the fact that this was his first AND ONLY film. is just…insane to me. Its WAY too high quality to be someones first attempt at feature making, this should have been a decades long career launching moment. and the fact it wasnt is astounding to me.

The cine is razor sharp, distinct, and uses lighting and smoke play very heavily to really help cement that distinct grungy NY vision. Red is a colour in heavy play here (for obvious reasons) but its used so intensly throughout that it becomes a motif of the film almost immediately. composition is for the most part rock solid, with only a couple of cutaways kind of failing to cut the mustard for me. the effects, for the most part, are absolutley incredible given the budget. Though, I will say there are some particular effects (not to get into too much detail here but its monster effects) that were the only ones to fall totally flat for me, which is a particular shame given that those effects are supposed to be the showstopping ones…instead rather than going ‘oh god! thats terrifying!’, I went, ‘oh god! thats terrible!!!’ Which…which is not the reaction you want for your finale…

Outside of that though, the edits superb, strong cuts, decent understanding of subtext and an attempt at putting meaning across through the medium of cuts and transitions over just telling the audience is a good starting point. Is it the best edit i’ve ever seen? no. but again, its sturdy and more than does the job.

Performance wise, I found myself with a bit of a mixed bag, Kadeem Hardison as ‘K’ I thought was an incredible choice. he really nails that ‘guy in over his head, trying to do the best for the sake of his cousin’ performance about as well as it could be done. he brings a real energy to the performance that I feel only he could deliver, playing the character as nonchalant, but just keeping that intensity of the character rumbling away in the background until the right time to pull it out.

James Bond III as Joel by contrast…im still not 100% sure about, I think he really nails the sincerity of the character, But Joel as a character is quite a complex one, a naive, but sincere ‘best intentions’ type, who over the course of the film strikes out at the fact hes so clealry naive that he tries to front as a totally in control character, who then has to come to terms with the fact that, that isnt really him and channel that naivity and and sincerity into a strength rather than a weakness.

I feel like James struggles to layer that performance, for me; when he ‘strikes out to be confident’ its…not that much different than the tone he gives when he’s trying to play the sincere version of himself. quiet anger is one of the harder performances to give if your not natrualistically that way, and I feel James struggles in his confrontations with K to bring the required energy. thats not to say he doesnt try! but it just kind of results in a more flat, distant performances than one that reads like a character being angry, but unsure of how to channel it. when he nails the deliveries and mannerisms, he ABSOLUTELY nails it…but when he doesnt? its bad. SO bad.

Theres a brief cameo from Samuel L. Jackson here, though, the promo material would have you believe he’s the whole point of the movie. He’s here for about 5 minutes collectively, and he’s fine…this is pre ‘pulp fiction’ and ‘Goodfellas’ but its a bit of an unremarkable turn for him.

The real star of the show for me? is Cynthia Bond as ‘Temptation’ who is able to play mysterious, alluring, and pure PURE evil just…incredibly. the power she puts out on screen makes you feel every venemous line delivery, every scratch, stab, punch, like it was happening to you. a whirlwind performance, and one that I STILL cannot believe did not lead to more horror roles, shes superb in this and worth checking this film out for just her performance alone if nothing else.

And as for the soundtrack? a heady mix of late 80s and very early 90s R&B and Rap, some jazzy tones are thrown in as well, it really helps define the film and the era its playing from, but it is VERY intrusive on the film. I opened with the disclaimer that if you averse to that specific 1989-1991 era of fashion and culture, you may be put off this? this is one of the big reasons why. I dont always think the score suits the film honestly, sometimes its a little to heavy for its own good. But when it does work in the films favour, it really helps give the film a lifeline.

I came away from ‘Def by Temptation’ very pleasently surprised. admittedly, given it had been featured on SO many of those ’20 horror movies’ box sets in the 2000s, my bar for this was on the floor. Which was probably why I was so blown away by just how well made, entertaining and interesting this film was. and how strong I believe the rewatch value on this could be! definitely worth checking out, I could see this pairing up quite well with something like ‘Fright Night’ or maybe as a NY Double header with ‘Jason takes Manhatten’. A fun and intelligent piece. its self aware, and has NO trouble putting across what it wants to say.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/def-by-temptation/

I first saw ‘Jaws’ when I was either 5 or 6 years old. My Dad, who considered this one of the top 3 greatest movies ever made outside of maybe ‘The Exorcist’; decided in his wisdom, in what I later found out was a ‘right of passage’ for many children of a certain age, to just…show me the film totally blind, other than to say it was a movie with a shark in it.

Dear reader…when I tell you that the ‘Ben Gardners boat’ scene saw 5 year old me change state into a pure liquid, that was projected 3 feet into the air and firmly behind the family sofa…and that I remember very little else about my first time watching this film, outside of blurs of screams of terror and the final 20 minutes (once they’d eventually calmed me down) I hope that puts across just how much of an impact this film had on me.

Over the years, Jaws became an irregularly regular watch. I lose track of how many times I watched and rewatched the VHS copy, but when the advent of DVD hit, and Jaws was one of the earlier titles to get a release. Both my dad and me upgraded to digital, and with it, my appreciation grew. years of gunk had been digitally scrubbed from the picture, and with it finally being presented in something approaching a more original aspect ratio, it felt like I’d seen the film for the first time.

As I got older, me and my dad bonded over ‘Jaws’ quoted it regularly, talked about the other (not quite as good) sequels. My Dad wasnt really much of a big talker, but with films? it was another world for him. and it helped to blossom a parental relationship into a genuine friendship.

DVD turned to Bluray, the quality got another massive bump and eventually; I met my partner, and it turns out? Shes Autistic, her specialist interest is Sharks, and ‘Jaws’ is ALSO one of her ‘top 3 greatest movies ever made’ which instantly made her a firm part of the family, and our mutual love for the film has led to some of the finest ‘movie nights’ ive ever had the privalidge to attend.

5 years ago to this day; I got the incredibly lucky chance to see the 4k remaster of this film, with the 7.1 surround mix played to a PACKED cinema where it seems that half the audience were hardcore ‘Jaws’ fans, and the other half had NO idea what to expect. When I tell you, that attending that screening is the closest I’ve personally ever come to a religious experience, and that it reinvigorated and reignighted everything I love about film as a medium, an art, and a lifelong endeavour. I do not say that lightly.

And so, tonight, in its 50th anniversairy year, for what has got to be creeping into the mid double digits. I sat down once again, with a freshly cracked 4k copy of Jaws, with my partner, and an array of Jaws based snacks. and we spent 2 hours in the company of a film that I can best describe as the same sensation of meeting an old and much loved friend after a long absence.

As a rule, I dont give out 5 out of 5’s on the films I review, because I always believe that a film COULD be better, and that; I sincerely dont believe i’ve lived long enough to be able to say with ANY authority what films i’d consider to be ‘faultless’. But goddamnit ‘Jaws’ is as close to a 5 out of 5 as I can give it.

Masterful in all regards is all I can honestly say. Im bias, this films been woven into my life so firmly that I dont feel I can objectively scrutinize it in a way that would feel sincere to me. Everything works perfectly like a well oiled machine, every check and balance is in line. before the Bluray release in 2012(ish) I could have (maybe) been picky on a couple of continuity issues. But even they’ve been corrected now.

Im honestly at a loss. Everythings as close to EXACTLY what I want out of a movie as its physically possible to be. With the only limitation it currently has being that I dont physically often have the time to watch 2+ hour long movies…Which is really more a ‘Me’ problem than anything else, and in some ways, even THAT works in the films favour because it makes it all the more special when I get to clear the diary, get some snacks and reconnect with these characters I quite literally have known for most of my life, in a film that helped me be a better person in the real world…And I honestly cant say theres much of ANYTHING out there thats been as impactful to me as that.

If you havent seen ‘Jaws’ do yourself a favour and go catch it. Even if you couldnt care less about technical ability, scoring, pacing, or any of that stuff. the story and characters alone are beyond anything i’ve personally ever seen on screen…Seriously; go watch ‘Jaws’. Masterpiece is too small a word.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/jaws/1/

Obligatory 40th Anniversairy screening. And what a movie!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-return-of-the-living-dead/3/

A bit of a blind spot in my 50’s ‘Giant Monster’/’Radioactive Creature Feature’ hitlist, I caught ‘Attack of the 50 ft. Woman’ today for the first time. And conflicted is probably the best way I can describe it.

Despite the titling, the titular ‘Giant Woman’ doesnt become a plot element in the film till the 40 minute mark (its a 64 minute long film) and even then, shes only shown in ‘off screen’ or ‘obscured’ interactions, fleetingly, until around 7 minutes off the end of the film when she finally does appear…and doesnt really do very much…In part due to the limitations on the special effects of the time, and in part due to the film predominantly taking place in an arid desert on the outskirts of California. I guess what im trying to say is, if your coming here expecting the giant lady to turn up 20 minutes in; demolishing buildings, throwing guys 150 feet and picking up cars…Your going to be somewhat dissapointed.

Instead, the main plot follows ‘Nancy Archer’ an heiress with a diamond the size of a bar of soap around her neck who, the film establishes, is a recovering alcoholic with mental health issues, who’s been released (under guidence) from a sanitorium, who’s husband is a lying, cheating money grubber who she initially broke things off with, but as the film opens, they’re back together…on shaky grounds.

Her husband Harry, is ABSOLUTELY cheating on Nancy with another woman called Honey. and in the opening of the film Nancy is speeding away from a saloon bar after catching Honey and Harry sharing a somewhat tender moment. while racing through the desert however, Nancy is stopped dead in her tracks by a 30 foot tall spherical ‘satallite’ containing an even taller, unsettling alien being. Terrified, she speeds back into town to tell the cops. Who are convinced she’s relapsed and is on the booze, but humour her and head out to look for the 30-40 foot tall man and his craft…only to wind up empty handed.

Harry relays this to Honey as part of the madness he has to deal with, and Honey nonchalantly suggests getting Nancy re-locked up where she’d probably die of stress anyway…at which point, Harry would be able to claim her fortune and estate and whisk Honey off into a pampered lifestyle…

At first, the Harry is BEYOND dismissive of the idea…but it slowly grows on him…However, before he can really put any kind of plan in motion, Nancy; who by this point is on the verge of a mental breakdown at the fact that noone will believe her, takes Harry and a gun out into the desert one final time to try and find the giant man…and, unsurprisingly, they DO! with HORRIFYING consiquences for Nancy when Harry speeds off leaving her in the middle of the desert with the giant assuming he’s just managed to kill two birds with one stone.

Inoffensive is probably the best way to describe this picture. In terms of ‘Atom Age’ cinema, its not particularly AS bad as some of the absolute drech that this era spat out…AND mercifully it is on the short side…But at the same time, the only thing ‘Giant’ about this film is the scale of the false advertising. I can almost hear a 50s carnival grifter being like ‘WHAT?! Y’said ya wanted a giant woman attacking stuff! and in the last 5 minutes, what happens?!…no refunds.’

The script isnt actually too bad, if you take out the giant lady stuff, its actually a kind of darker picture about a couple planning on bumping off an heiress to steal her estate. brightened up with a few lighter hearted comedy cop moments and ‘local character’ types. the pacing is a little on the slow side, but nothing too pedestrian, the characters are all animate and reasonably lively. the dialogue is a little densly packed, as is the natura of 50s cinema…but its getting more ‘talky’ here than ‘expositiony’ which I think is a nice touch.

the act structuring is a little awkward, the first and third acts seem kind of miniscule compared to the second act, they transition well enough and set up the stalls fine. But once we hit that second act, thats where we seem to find most of the padding and the film kind of settles into an idling level tone wise, where it doesnt seem to ramp up or grow beyond what its already established in the first act. The themes of mental health, alcoholism and the representation of female empowerment here may be a little murky, but for the 50s, its interesting to see a film explore these themes…even if what its trying to say ultimately ends up getting a little lost.

Direction wise, this looks fine, a decent quality studio picture with some almost Lynchian moments peppered throughout (largely around the spacship and alien sequences, and in the more domestic settings) its a good quality production that reminded me of films like ‘The Incredible Shrinking Man’ and ‘The Giant Claw’ (sans the bird the size of a battleship)

the cine is crisp, with some nice light play, good solid shadow work in places, Id have been fascinated to see what this film looked like in colour. The effects work is a little lacking in my opinion, with some of the ‘off screen’ giant limbs looking particularly clunky and awkward. Its the right side of cheese though, so im sure you MST3K fans will find a charm to this one.

The Performances are probably the best aspect of this production with Allison Hayes giving a really solid performance as Nancy here, working a solid range of emotions with a strong physicality…it’s ironically the point where she becomes the ’50 ft. woman’ that we really kind of lose the heart of this production as her dialogue evaporates, and she loses all of that wonderful physicality.

William Hudson as her husband Harry is equally great, playing the slimey cheating husband role really well with some venemous deliveries peppered throughout and a demeanour thats a mixture of frustrated and beyond the point of caring.

These two are backed by a supporting cast who, for the most part, seem to be having fun with their roles, but in a way that doesnt sacrifice the quality of the performance, theres a nice undercurrent of self aware comedy to their deliveries. But also a good level of restraint NOT to turn this into a hamfest. and thats JUST the right kind of tone this thing needed to be the best it can be. with the sheriffs team in particular coming across as likeable and a little hokey, but also clearly still aiming for a performance that isnt grating.

Throw in a fairly generic orchestral ‘WOMP WOMP WOMPPPPP!!’ 50s B-movie soundtrack, and ‘Attack of the 50ft Woman’ is a solid and enjoyable picture thats ultimately let down by the lack of its titular premise. more ladies smashing down towerblocks and kicking cars 100 feet into the air, and this would have been a firm favourite. As it stands? I can see myself definitely revisiting this film in future. But whether my thoughts will improve on a rewatch seem unlikely.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/attack-of-the-50-foot-woman/

The question that ran through my mind as the credits rolled on this film was a simple one. ‘Did the world NEED a modernized remake of ‘Criminally Insane’ done in the style of Rob Zombies ‘Halloween’ with a budget that, bizarrely was likely higher than the original film, but somehow looks cheaper?…and i’ll be honest, I dont think the world did…

This 2016 remake of the original 1975 campy ‘classic’ is pretty much hobbled right out of the gate because they cant commit to a tone. The original film was clearly a campy horror comedy, aimed at being a bit gritty and grimey up front, but running a clearly self aware black comedy streak as an undercurrent…This film by contrast is leading with the grimey gritty vibes throughout…but rather than having the comedy layered into it offering a nice low key contrast to what we’re watching, instead it opts for short bursts of lowest common denominator ‘mandatory comedy’…what do I mean by that? I mean that randomly characters will pop up wearing thrifted bad taste clothes and purposfully bad wigs. occasional scenes will speed the footage up and add goofy music into the back ground. and the actual attempt at jokes or site gags are awful.

I would normally be able to overlook such abject attempts at ‘yuk-yuks’ if it wasnt for the fact that the film makers here have decided to be a bit edgy and have altered the original films plot with a couple of new additions that end up making the whole endeavour feel like a poor taste exercise more than anything else…

So the broad strokes of this film are essentially the key beats of ‘Criminally Insane’ we open in a mental hospital around lunchtime as Ethel is preparing to get her breakfast. However, just as shes about to tuck in, two mean girls steal her breakfast and smash it up, and then an orderly accuses Ethel of making a scene and sends her back to her room to wait for dinner.

While on the way back, one of the mean girls jumps her again and beats her up calling her a ‘fat bitch.’ bruised, Ethel returns to the day room, where a friend of hers gives her a chocolate bar she managed to sneak into the facility via a relative.

Next thing we know…BOOM, a simultaineous rape scene and octaganarian sex scene as Ethel is bound, molested and raped by two orderlies, and a random 60 year old woman has sex with a chef at the hospital. The doctor in Ethels care walks in and catches the orderlies and makes it clear he’s going to disciplin them the next day. But Ethel isnt taking that lying down, and after taking swabs and evidence of the event, she demands the doctor releases her, or she’ll sue the entire hospital into the ground.

The doctor takes some ‘secret bookshelf scotch’ necks a shot and arranges for Ethel to be released into the care of her…I want to say Aunt…because the actress playing ‘Granny’ in this verison is WAY too young to be a granny…in either case Ethel gets back to essentially a trailer park, where shes almost immediately berated for being fat, aaand then…basically the plot of ‘Criminally Insane’ plays out. only with one or two more rape scenes, somehow less gore than the original, less campy comedy, and a 3rd act plot twist that just felt uneccessarily cruel.

I didnt really vibe with this one. In fact, theres only two things I can say I liked, and thats Dixie Gers performance as ‘Ethel’ which I thought was absolutely superb and very much in line with Prescilla Aldens style of performance (honestly, shes a really great Ethel in this) and I can say that the direction and cine is probably some of the best to come out of a ‘Crazy Fat Ethel’ movie…but again, I dont think thats saying much as the bar for most of these movies was on the floor.

The script seems unusually mean spirited for the most part, with all characters involved either undergoing trauma, processing trauma or delivering trauma, I alluded to the fact this felt like a Rob Zombie adaptation of ‘Criminally Insane’ and it really kind of is, the amount of nudity and swearing in this films significantly elevated over the original, the gore is less than the original, but more intense, they’ve decided to give this film a mixture of modernised ‘reimaginings’ of the original ‘Criminally Insane’ score and hard alt rock. everything has a slightly subdued washed out look to it, some of the additional scenes feel unecessarily ‘Art housey’ which again, tracks with ‘Zombies’ random moments where his films suddenly veer into modernised grimey german expressionism by way of David Lynch.

The pacing is significantly worse than ‘Criminally Insane’ because the slight comedy undercurrent is missing…it means we’re basically spending 81 minutes with unlikeable or strange characters being depressed or murderous with no restbite or break. Im not saying they should have gone more farse. But I think theres absolutely a better way to handle this kind of film that would have given it the benefit of a technical boost, while maintaining or successfully translating Nick Millards original tones and directional notes into something actually engaging…as it stands, I dont quite know how they’ve managed it…But they’ve made a film about a woman who murders when she gets hungry…kind of boring.

The excessive rape, nudity and abuse across the runtime sucks what little fun could be left out of this film. Leaving an end product that just…isnt a fun watch. with mixed to poor dialogue, characters with poorly defined motivations, and aspirations that feel above its budget and station.

The direction is pretty basic, again, this thing has had a pretty nice technical boost. Millard had a vision but struggled to realise it. Brian Dorton seems to have the opposite porblem, he can keep on top of his cast and crew fine enough. But his vision just isnt engaging or original to me. It feels cribbed for lack of a better descriptive. and while I feel like he just about gets the cast on track with getting the script out. I just dont feel like this really stands out against any of the other low/no budget films ‘Wild Eye’ have made of this ilk.

The cine and edit are the same, shots hold out for the most part, but they arnt exactly inspiring, and in some cases, attempts to ‘art’ up the place just end up falling flat. The edit does the best it can with what its working with…but even with decent B-roll and coverage, its just kind of hard to make this thing come alive…

Add in that most of the performances are, not particularly enjoyable. The elderly people at the start of the film and Dixie are seemingly the only people who know what type of film this SHOULD be…and try to lead with that, with the film itself working against that style every step of the way…

Ultimatley; if im gonna watch a ‘Crazy Fat Ethel’ movie, im here for the weird cult/campy fun primarily. and the horror secondarily. This, to me, puts the cart before the horse. I can see what they were trying to do here. And I think a ‘straight horror’ take on this, if handled right, could possibly be weirdly compelling…But removing the self awareness from this series, really just leaves us with a pretty generic slasher thats bloated with bar scenes and arguments and very little else…I was not impressed.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/crazy-fat-ethel/

The original ‘Criminally Insane’ (Also known as ‘Crazy Fat Ethel’ is a bit of a personal pleasure of mine. a film that isnt afraid to be what it wants to be, even if what it wants to be is something as simple as an overweight woman with mental health issues who murders when people deny her sweet treats and lil snacks…It was a surreal film make NO mistake, mixing dark comedy elements with a genuinely harrowing subplot about abusive relationships. Compelling viewing im sure you’ll agree…

Then 12 years later, Nick Millard decided there was more to explore with the character…for SOME reason…and on a budget that consisted of a camcorder that was 3 months late on payments, and a half dozen favours from friends and family. Nick made ‘Criminally Insane 2’ and having now watched it for the first time, I can definitely say that it is in fact. moving pictures assembled in some kind of an order…

The plot picks up about 10-12 years after the events of ‘Criminally Insane’ as we reunite with Ethel, once again drugged up in a mental hospital. We then are introduced to two doctors who run the hospital, who have just been given the budget for the year, and its looking like serious cuts are going to have to be made. They decide the simplest and quickest cut would be to release any inmates that havent attacked other residents or hurt themselves in the last 5 years, moving them either to a halfway house, or a lower security hospital. And…given Ethels basically been in a vegetative state for the last 5-10 years, eating small meals and…seemingly rewatching ‘Crazy Fat Ethel’ over and over again in her mind, the doctors decide that she’s a low risk patient and transfer her to a halfway house, care of elderly landlady ‘Hope Bartholemew’.

and…basically, from there, it all kicks off again. With Ethel not getting enough food, or worse, getting BAD food, and slowly but surely picking off the residents of the halfway house…Only…this time it seems like even LESS folks care about all these dissapearing people. as a homicide detective AND Ethels former Doctor are both made aware that Ethel is acting erratic…But both dont really decide to do anything until the final 15 minutes of this 61 minute feature.

And when I say that I sincerely believe that more of ‘Crazy Fat Ethel’ plays in ‘Crazy Fat Ethel 2’ than ‘Crazy Fat Ethel 2’…im not kidding, what we have here is probably somewhere in the region of 25 minutes of footage of Priscilla Alden spacing out to camera or hobbling around slowly trying to murder people, intercut with some of THE worst exposition i’ve heard in a good while, and padded out the WAZOO with ANY scrap of footage they could pull from ‘Crazy Fat Ethel’ but the footage is so low resolution and poor, it looks like its being viewed through smoked glass.

There really isnt much need for a more in depth review than that. the direction and cine is rushed, poorly composed and shot for function over form. Degausser video have done the best they can with the materials provided for the film, but its still riddled with tape faults, juddering, interpolation and the fact that it must have been shot on very cheap low quality tape stock.

The script feels less like an attempt at making a movie, and more like an excuse for Nick Millard to hang around with his buddies for a couple of weeks shooting a movie, and if thats all that is? Then more power to him. I dont think we as audience members to this should be charged full retail so that he could have that priviladge.

There are a dwindlingly small moment of genuinely funny, or sincerely awkward moments. at times it inadvertently winds up feeling Lynchian in its overly long holds, strange compositional choices, unique dialogue and even more unique line delivery. But make no mistake this absolutely should have been a short film, half an hour at most, thats been padded to try and make the base runtime in the quickly developing ‘SOV’ scene at the time.

The performances are just horrendous, and thats one of the few things that works in the films favour, its nice to see Priscilla back in action and she gets the lions share of the best bits alongside the actress who played ‘Hope’ who’s line deliveries could shatter birds…

Throw in a farty synth scoring intercut with music from the first ‘Crazy Fat Ethel’ film…not uniquely used here…just used as part of the padding. and I kind of have to wonder what the point of all this was…I think a rewatch may ultimately decide which side of the fence this one lands on for me…But I dont think where was enough ‘so bad its good’-ness here to warrent repeated watchings…but at the same time, I feel compelled to say that if you enjoyed the first film for its unusual tone and energy, that you’ll probably find something to like in this one too.

But unless you have a strong constitution, absolutely stay away from this thing.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/criminally-insane-2/

So a quick note before I get into the beans and rice of this thing – I was given a copy of this movie from a friend. I enjoy FNAF as a franchise, but do not support Scott Cawthon, or his political beliefs. and as such, I havent supported him financially since around the time ‘Five Nights at Freddy’s 4’ was released. Its very much ‘to each their own’ but I dont feel comfortable financially supporting someone who’s using that revenue to prop up vile ideologies. As always, I suggest you look into the issue, but yeah. I got this for free…anyway!

I’ve been a fan of the FNAF franchise pretty much since the release of ‘Five Nights at Freddy’s 2’ and while I cant say im particularly great at the games. I enjoy watching other people play them, I enjoy the tone, atmosphere and lore, and even though the continuity on the series is essentially borked at this point, the core idea and concepts have always captured me, and I was surprised honestly that, outside of films like ‘West World’ or the early ‘Childs Play’ films…that this kind of ‘possessed killer robot ghost’ thing hadnt really been handled in live action media.

When the early games came out, I thought this franchise was just BEGGGING for a movie or TV adaptation, and lowe and behold! one was announced in the mid 2010’s…and then it fell into Development hell. The rights were initially sold to Warner Bros who, for whatever reason couldnt firm up a way to tell this story (despite a straight adaptation of the first game with maybe a few ‘pulls’ from the 2nd and 3rd game to flesh it out, being a surprisingly easy thing to do.) The film fermented over there with only a few glimpses at concept costumes for Freddy and Bonnie being revealed alongside a page or two of ‘rumoured’ scripting, before the rights lapsed and were resold to Universal and Blumhouse…If you wanna know how good the Warner Bros script for ‘Five nights’ would have been…its been heavily rumoured that what was generated over there, was tweaked slightly and released as ‘The Banana Splits Movie’…and that film…well. it exists and thats about the nicest thing I have to say…

And so, almost 9 years after it was initially revealed that a FNAF movie was in the works. It finally arrived in theaters LONG after the fad had died down (for reference, this film is a VERY loose adaptation of the first game, with elements of the 2nd and 3rd game thrown in. But by the time this film had come out, the entire franchise had been fully rebooted and relaunched, and was 2 years into that relaunch.) and…well, it feels like the film has been handled very ‘diplomatically’ is probably the best way I can describe it.

The reality of the situation is, FNAF as a franchise has always been targeted to teens and young adults. It deals with Child murder, abuse, creepy pasta style horror, the paranormal and isnt afraid to shy away from guts and gore if needs be. The problem is FNAF, on TOP of attracting that Teen/Young Adult audience…Also pulled in a LOT of kids, who via youtube were able to experience all the games, the memes, the spin off mods…and that kind of put the studio in a hard place honestly, because…How do you realise a horror game franchise that goes HARD in places into a film franchise that has a significant audience of under 13 year olds?

It essentially meant they could do one of two things, either stay faithful to the source material, make it R rated (18) and lose a significant portion of the box office. Or make it PG-13 (15 in the UK), take the hit on the grizzlier details and gore and tick off the hardcore fans. But maximise profit…You can guess which option they took…

So the film is set in the mid to late 90s and follows Mike, a young adult who’s lost his parents and is currently acting as guardian for his younger sister Abby. Mikes out of work, is still trying to find his place in the world, is being haunted by terrible nightmares of an incident in his childhood where his brother got kidnapped during a picnic. and condensing issues even further, Mikes aunt is trying desperately to seek guardianship of Abby over Mike despite neither Mike or Abby wanting this.

An olive branch is thrown Mikes way when he’s offered a…not so great gig running security on the night shift at Freddy Fazbears Pizzaria. A Chuck-e-cheese style animatronic pizza arcade that shut down in the late 80s after a series of child dissapearences and other ‘incidents’. Mike initially turns the job down as he doesnt work nights, but when its explained to him that taking this would look favourable to a judge should Mikes aunt take this guardianship case to the courts…he begrudgingly accepts.

And from there, things get weird. Mikes takes occasional naps on the job, and in his dreams he relives the abduction of his brother, but this time several children appear, silently giving the impression that they know what happened to Mikes brother. After a short while, we’re introduced to ‘Vanessa’ a cop in the local area who comes to check in with Mike nightly as the pizzaria is part of her rounds.

Vanessa eventually introduces Mike to the animatronics, Freddy, Foxy, Bonnie and Chica. the party pals of Freddy Fazbear…But theres more to these animatronics than meets the eye, as we see when Mikes Aunt hires some folks to break into the pizzaria and smash up the place in an attempt to get Mike fired…it transpires that these Animatronics are FAR from circuitry and wires…and that an evil presence haunts the pizzaria controlling the animatronics to do their bidding, and it wants Mike dead, and Abby to join the ranks!

I’ll be honest here, I do have to kind of try to seperate the games lore from the films lore. because if I try and compare the two, I feel like i’d be doing the film a disservice, becuase it doenst go anywhere NEAR in depth enough when compared to the games in terms of setting the atmosphere and lore. and even more surprisingly, there were very few jumpscares…which is kind of a core element of FNAF. I would argue if you want a richer, more in depth experience of this story, watching lets plays of the games is probably your best route. But im here to judge the film. and on the whole, I think for an PG audience, it does what it does about as well as it can do. Its flawed…but given the limitations, I get it…

The script here kind of oversimplifies things, the souls of the kids only really interact with Mike via dreams, whereas in the games they’re a bit more nebulous, interacting via the arcade machines, easter eggs, and even random encounters. and thats probably one of the biggest things missing from this film. there just isnt enough random unnerving stuff going on. In the FNAF games, on occasion, unsettling things just happen, like varients of the animatronics randomly appearing crumpled on the floor, in later games smashed up older animatronics will randomly turn up with unique features that are unsettling.

Here? we have a kind of linear supernatural horror film…and thats kind of it, there was plenty of opportunity to add small unsettling details into the backgrounds of shots for atmosphere, to set up things for potential sequels and to keep the viewers on the edge of their seats. But they just dont do it, hell even the animatronics, who are really supposed to be THE stars of this movie, dont get to do a whole lot. theres a couple of scenes, one at the beginning and one about a third of the way in where they get to do stuff, but because of the PG rating, most of the kills happen off screen, in shadows, or are just implied.

I know one of the reasons why they’ve chosen to soften the animatronics is partly because children cant be murderers in an PG rating…or if they are, it has to be indirectly attributed. But it doesnt half suck the fun out of the film when most of the horror elements of this film are really more ‘thriller’ attributed than ‘horror’ attributed. It feels kind of ‘soft’ by comparison…and while I will say that, the way they handled this film sets it up nicely for a much grizzlier sequel…that doesnt help us deal with the originals (ironic) lack of ‘bite.’

The characters themselves are all pretty much fine, with Mike, Vanessa and Abby all getting just enough complexity to help get the audience on board with them, and each character gets their own arc thats quite well handled. I just kind of wish those elements had been better connected in with the main plotline, because…as it stands, it feels like this was some kind of supernatural horror film that quickly had the animatronics stuffed into it, rather than it being a film where the animatronics actually got the plot built around them.

I thinkt he tones probably this films biggest save, its largely serious in its motivations, but it isnt afraid to contrast that darkness with a little comedy…it’s not quite as well handled as the games handle it. But I think it does alright.

In essence, this is a film that feels like its kind of trying to tell the FNAF story while being restrained. Again, I know WHY they did that. and It absolutely makes business sense TO DO that…but at the same time, it did leave me feeling like it just could have been a little more atmospheric or intense as a counter compensation…instead? this just kind of feels a little bit middle of the road for the most part, with only the occasional stand out moment to really push it up to the next level.

The directions pretty much fine, its a studio flick, Blumhouse know what theyre doing (for the most part) and this does manage to capture the run down, grimey feeling that freddy fazbears pizzaria commands. If I had any complaints, its that I felt like the main performance hall (where we spend most of the movie) could have stood to have been a bit more smashed up and grubby. But all the backrooms, offices and surrounding areas fit in perfectly.

Emma Tammi does a solid job bringing the visuals of the games to life here, and while I will say that this film is maybe a little overly ‘safe’ in terms of its direction, that by no means means its a bad watch. To me? it feels like it gets in, does what needs to be done, coordinates the various departments well, adds a decent amount of flare and then gets out. It absolutely could have been done better, but i’ll take ‘just above average’ over ‘poor’ any day.

Same goes for the cine really, I had a few issues with lighting where they decided to go for an overly dark setup that made it hard to see what was really going on in some of the darker sequences. But shots are very well composed, that 80s neon colour flare really helps perk things up, the animatronics (for the most part) look great on camera, though there are a couple of scenes where the movements make it VERY clear these are guys in costumes…which did pull me out of the action a bit…But on the whole? this is probably about as good as a FNAF movie adapation could get on a visual front…Would I have liked a bit more experiementation? absolutely…But then, this film wasnt really meant for me. It was meant for kids aged 12-17. I just happen to be collateral.

Performance wise, its solid, Josh Hutcherson as Mike brings a likeable and ‘downtrodden’ energy to the role giving…maybe just a tad too much of a theatrical performance to his deliveries. But on the whole, hes pretty much fine. he has a good level of physicality and I hope if they do get a sequel off the ground he makes a return. Same goes for Elizabeth Lail as Vanessa, who manages to bring a sunny and sincere energy to the role, that turns quickly when her past begins to creep out. I will also give VERY high praise to Matthew lilard…I…I cant say why because *spoilers* but he plays his part very well, and genuinely surprised me. It was great to see him back in a horror role.

And finally the soundtrack is okay. its clear they were aiming for 80s chic with it, but they wanted to make it clear this film wasnt taking place in the real world…which means we get treated to a mixture of LCD Soundsystem style drone pieces, combined with dollar tree/kidz bop style soundalike tracks of 80s hits with totally different lyrics (the big one for me being that Michael Jacksons sound seems to get a roll out here at least a couple of times…) It suits the film, but didnt really do anything for me personally.

All in all? I’ve seen and read a few different attempts at adapting FNAF to a movie by this point, both from studios, and from fans…and out of all of them, this ones been the best. But that doesnt mean its not without its faults. the total lack of directional atmosphere, and lack of attention to detail on creating those smaller ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ moments that really put the fear of god into people. results in this film feeling just a little too clinically safe for me personally.

The fact they spend most of the movie essentially just establishing the core lores of the franchise means that a sequel can really hit the ground running and ramp up from there…But leaves this film feeling a bit like a launch pad, rather than a rocket.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed ‘Five Nights at Freddy’s’, I look forward to checking out the inevitable sequel. Do I think you should rush out to check this out? No…and especially not if your deep into the games lore…But if your looking for a casual watch of an evening, something that goes down easy and just about scratches an itch, I think you could stand to do worse than this.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/five-nights-at-freddys/