Chucky: Death By Misadventure

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Chucky, Brad Dourif, finds another child, played by Zackary Arthur, to befriend, however things are different to how they were with Andy, played by Alex Vincent, all those years ago.

A lot of people are upset with the LGBTQ+ themes on display here and say that it feels more like a show about homophobia and less about Chucky. To them I say, where have you been this entire franchise? Issues around sexuality have always been central to the Child’s Play universe and this feels like a natural progression of that. Moreover, it allows us to reframe Chucky himself, as traditionally he was just evil, but here he is shown to be sticking up for Arthur’s character as he is being victimised at school- adding further nuance to the character.

I think that is why this first episode worked for me so much and why I am eager to see where the series goes next as this is a very different relationship between child and Chucky than we have seen before. Usually Chucky makes it his mission to either possess or kill the central child/ adult in these films however here he seems to be trying to befriend him, maybe even turning him into a possible apprentice?

Another thing I am thankful for with this series is that they got right to it and had the lead find out about Chucky in the first episode rather than have it drag out into the second or the third episode. I feel that by doing this it allows for the series to move at a better pace.

Overall, a very promising start to the series.

Pros.

The relationship between the lead and Chucky

A new side to Chucky

The kills

Tackling important issues head on

Cons.

The new Chucky redesign takes some getting used to

If you enjoyed this review, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, the ability for you to pick what I review next and full access to my Patreon exclusive game reviews. Check it out!

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Dune: Adapting The Unadaptable

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

The prestigious house of Atreides is given the fiefdom of the planet Arrakis and is forced further into a blood war between the previous rulers of the planet and its natural inhabitants.

I will say right off the bat I have recently developed a dislike for Denis Villeneuve as his ego has really come to light, and much like Christopher Nolan he seems to think his films are works of art and worse yet that he can tell people how to watch them. Much like Nolan, Villeneuve has also launched a series of outdated, out of touch attacks on streaming services which acts as a further point of irritation. However, for the purposes of this review I will put my thoughts about the man aside and just focus on the film.

For the most part this is a stellar adaption of the classic science fiction novel, I am currently reading the book to further my understanding of this film and I have to say there are scenes in it that feel directly translated with such precise attention to detail that you can really feel the love for the text coming through. Obviously, there are a few things cut out for brevity here and there such as a wider backstory for Dr Yueh, played by Chang Chen, which I feel hurts the film but for the most part this is a very faithful and well done adaption.

In terms of aesthetics and CGI this film is a dream, it has a clear and distinct style and is honestly beautiful to look at. The world feels so real and so refreshingly new it reminds one of watching Avatar for the first time. The only time I noticed the CGI looking a little patchy would be in one of the future, vison, battle scenes in which Paul, played by Timothee Chalamet, envisions himself fighting alongside the natives in battle armour and at one point in the conflict his face covering comes off and the effects on the characters face are poor.

In terms of performances it is strong across the board, everyone has a moment to shine, except for Chalamet and Zendaya. Zendaya is not given much to do beyond be the person Paul sees in his visons and is likely be saved more for the second film. Whereas Chalamet drifts through the whole film with an indifference that borders on boredom. I understand that once he gets the sight in the novel Paul becomes a little detached, but Chalamet is instead like that throughout even before he gets the ability to see into the future.

Overall, a strong adaption with only minor issues.

Pros.

Well realised

Beautiful CGI

A distinct personality

Mostly good performances

Cons.

Chalamet

Pacing issues and leaving some important things out

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Copshop: Balloons Make A Great Shield To Mask Your Identity

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A fixer, Frank Grillo, and a hitman, Gerard Butler, find themselves locked together in a police station, with a rookie police officer, Alexis Louder, trying to figure out what is going on and why everyone wants the fixer dead.

Very much like with Joe Carnahan’s other work this film is very stylised, moreover it benefits from being this way: having a very distinctive visual pleat that draws on grindhouse and exploitation elements whilst keeping things fresh.

Surprisingly following Carnahan’s Boss Level, I find Frank Grillo not in best shape here. I understand the script wants us to view Grillo’s character as an unfeeling cold escape artist, but the film does not do enough to set that up, rather it just makes leaps in character development that just assume the audience is already viewing the character that way, which they most likely aren’t.

It is because of this that Butler really becomes the star of the show and manages to outperform Grillo seizing the lime light and the potential sequel. The only threat to Butler in this regard is Toby Huss, as the secondary hitman sent in to clean up Butler’s characters mistakes. Huss steals the show and has sone of the most memorable lines of dialogue I have heard in a long time, I know the film kills him off but if they do do a sequel he needs to come back in some way. Maybe a twin brother.

The crime thriller elements were engaging if a little generic at times, however they were elevated by the quirky personality of the film and some of the more out there comedic moments that strangely not only land but work.

Overall, the style and the humour elevate what could otherwise be a by the numbers thriller.

Pros.

Huss

Butler

The personality

Cons.

A generic plot

A few issues with character development

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Insidious: If Your Kid Starts To Astral Project It Is Time To Have A Serious Talk With Them

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A young boy, played by Ty Simpkins, passes into a coma and whilst there some otherworldly demonic being tries to take over his body. His family and a team of paranormal investigators must step in and fight back.

I remember being absolutely terrified by this the first time I watched it, all those years ago. Though watching it now I find myself somewhat disappointed. Maybe it is because I have watched a lot more horror since and have seen the same scares here parroted back at me thousands of times over, maybe my taste has simply changed. That is not to say this film is bad rather that watching it now it feels overly familiar.

The idea of the Further, the demonic realm, is well realised and is used to great effect to set up a number of scary scenes. It is a shame the Further sequence only last for around ten minutes as it is the most creative and visually stunning of the whole film. Moreover, the titular evil demon looks terrifying, and is an obvious and well deserved addition to the halls of memorable horror monsters.

Lin Shayne is of course a horror icon and proves her status here. Though Shayne’s Elise is only in the film for a short while, she leaves a mark.

Overall, a solid horror film, but not as good as Wan’s later horror efforts, i.e. The Conjuring.

Pros.

The Man With Fire On His Face

The Further

Patrick Wilson

A few good scares

Cons.

A little bit familiar

We needed more time in The Further

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Last Duel: The Horrors Of The Female Experience

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Two medieval feudal lords come to blows over a series of injustices.

This film is incredibly hard to watch. It is deeply hard to get through as it features a number of rape scenes which are increasingly graphic. Though I don’t know the need to be as graphic as the film chooses to be with them, I do think that using them in the narrative this film creates is a good thing as it sets up an important conversation about accountability and the mistrust of female victims when they come forward.

In many ways the film is incredibly powerful as it makes us reflect on the female experience and at how throughout time men have abused their positions and powers within society. There are some lines in this film particularly during the third chapter which is the truth of events from Marguerite’s, played by Jodie Cormer, point of view which are incredibly harrowing and show just how deep the injustice goes.

I thought Jodie Cormer was terrific here and her performance carried serious weight. Sadly, however she was let down by her co-stars, who ranged from underused to miscast. Yes, I am referring to Matt Damon who is by far the worst performer in this film. To make matters worse this film is set in France yet everyone has an American or British accent which is not only distracting but irritating and feels done because an executive thought ‘oh American audiences can’t understand a French accent or won’t read subtitles. With the idea that the actors also didn’t want to have to either learn French or try and do an accent also a likely possibility.

Overall, a powerful film in many ways but one that you would never want to watch twice.

Pros.

The conversation it starts

Addressing male abuses of power

The female perspective

Cons.

Matt Damon

The American accents

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Ron’s Gone Wrong: The Most Toxic Message Of The Year

0.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

In a dystopia where children need a personal robot to be their friend and post everything they do online one boy, voiced by Jack Dylan Grazer, complains to his family about not having one and then is unhappy when he gets a discounted one. An unhealthy friendship ensues.

Don’t take your kids to see this. Don’t waste your money. There are so, so many better animated films out there that actually have a positive message and enrich those who view them, this only serves to cause harm. This is one of the worst animated films I have seen in a long time.

Firstly, the main boy inspires no sympathy because whilst yes he is a social outcast once he gets a friend in his damaged robot Ron, voiced by Zach Galifianakis, he immediately puts him down and treats him like dirt. Insisting that he gets to pick his friends and because Ron is not perfect out of the box he doesn’t want to know him, what sort of message is this sending to kids? Yes, as the film goes on her learns the error of his ways, but by that point he is already a loathsome lead.

Secondly, this film seems to view the younger generation as being unable to function without constantly being online, which I don’t believe is true. Rather it is more likely to be a cynical Gen X or older view of ‘these young people today always on their phones’, which honestly was never more than a gross generalisation. The world that this film is set in is honestly a hellscape, with big tech companies being basically all powerful, and viewed in this context the whole film becomes incredibly depressing, was that the point?

Thirdly, and in my opinion the most grievous of all, this film treats online issues as throwaway lines and worse yet jokes. Within the film one of the characters Savannah, voiced by Kylie Cantrall, becomes the victim of online bullying as she is labelled ‘poop girl’. This presents the film with the opportunity to tackle an issue that is effecting a lot of young people around the globe, however, rather than do this it trivialises the issue, overlooks it in favour of continuing the main plot and then uses it as a joke as the film almost wants you to laugh at her for being called ‘poop girl’. In my mind not only is this a wasted opportunity but also it is incredibly dangerous.

Overall, this film highlights everything wrong with modern animation, and children should not be allowed to see it.

Pros

Ron is a nice character who made me laugh

Cons.

It is harmful

Using online bullying as a joke

The main kid is a brat and the film says his friend with Ron is good when in fact it is deeply unhealthy

Kids today, and how again Hollywood executives don’t know the first thing

It’s message is rotten

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Halloween Season Of The Witch: The Horrors Of Children’s TV Advertising Taken To An Extreme

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Taking a drastic departure from Michael Myers, this film explores the efforts of one man, played by Dan O’ Herlihy, to murder children through an elaborate scheme involving flashing adverts and children’s Halloween masks.

Many people dislike this film as it tried to change what the franchise was perceived to be about, however, I think the film is stronger for doing this and in many ways ahead of its time. Furthermore, I think this film has more than enough personality and interesting ideas to be worth merit entirely on in its own right.

That is not to say this is a perfect film. The plot is widely nonsensical, cheesy and silly and whilst this can allow for some enjoyment it also reduces the fear of the film making it less effective as a horror film. I didn’t find myself being scared like I did with the original Halloween whilst watching it.

I thought the acting across the board was fairly strong, with no one letting the side down.

A final thought is that I would like to see the Halloween franchise go back to the idea of anthology as there is a lot that could be done there, I don’t mean have a film filled with little shorts but rather have each subsequent film in the series feature knew characters and ideas but share the same world as those before it. Basically to expand the universe out.

Overall, an interesting film though one that is not in any way scary.

Pros.

The ending

The ideas of Celtic magic

Doing something new

Cons.

It is not scary

There are pacing issues throughout

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Temple: A Camera So Powerful It Can Record People Having Sex Through Walls

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Three friends go to Japan in search of a supposedly haunted temple, once they find this temple things quickly start to go wrong. It is a very familiar premise.

This idea has been done to death, a group of people seek out x building usually because its rumoured to be haunted, then it is, and things go bad. At this point it is just lazy storytelling, the writers for these films could try and at least come up with some new reasons why these characters want to explore haunted buildings, but no.

Moreover, this film also trots out the dead all along little kid cliché. There is a little child guide in this film who turns out to be either not real or a ghost depending on your interpretation, of course the job of this kid is to lure the young folk out to the temple, what a shock. I think the use of this cliché just shows how bland and by the numbers this film is, clearly the writer of the film didn’t want to give it anything resembling a personality and just wanted to stick to shlock and it shows.

That said I would not say this is a terrible film, the creature design is good and there are a fair few good scares once they get to the temple, there is some promise there sadly it is just never developed in any way.

Overall, though it has a few interesting ideas for the most part this film is just things you have seen before.

Pros.

A few good scares

The creature design

The Japanese flavour to the horror

Cons.

It is riddled with cliches

The writing is awful

Not a single one of the characters is likeable

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Nosferatu: Dracula By Any Other Name

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An unofficial retelling of Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

I have seen many different versions of the Dracula story over the years, most of which just feel like the same old thing trotted out yet again, however here it feels different. This is because of two things, firstly though it is an unofficial retelling and has different character names and a few new twists and turns this film does feel in many ways like a very faithful adaptation of the novel. Secondly, this film has enough of its own personality and style to stand out and create something for itself away from the Dracula myth.

I found the Count, played by Max Schreck, to be quite a striking villain. The design of his monster makeup is very well done and results in a very terrifying and memorable character on screen. Further adding to this I liked that the film did not go down the trite rabbit hole of having Dracula be sexy. In many vampire films the vampires don’t look monstrous and scary instead they are made to look sexy, this ruins the threat and it many ways hamstrings the sub-genre.

My main issue with this film was the timings of the inter-title cards. Some were too quick and others took far too long to leave, this became an issue as the film went on as the ones that were too quick made me feel like I was missing out elements of the film and the ones that were too slow bored me and took me out of it. Both resulted in the same effect, me becoming less engaged.

Overall, a good vampire film and one that is a classic in its own right. However, that is not to say it is perfect the inter-title cards have timing issues and some of the shots are difficult to translate, leaving you once again struggling to know what is going on.

Pros.

A faithful adaptation

Not making the monster sexy

A strong sense of style

Cons.

Some of the shots are hard to understand, the techniques used now feel confusing.

The inter-titles

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

I’m Your Man: A Human Robot Love Affair Is The Next Stage Of Human Evolution

4.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Scientist Alma, Maren Eggert, is tasked with completing a three week trial with a humanoid robot, played by Dan Stevens, who is designed to be the man of her dreams. When the three weeks are up she is to write either in favour, or not, of giving these robotic beings rights based on her experiences.

I enjoyed this film quite a lot. I thought it had such a huge heart that it was almost impossible not to like it. The film tries to further the questions of what does it mean to be human and can love transcend all bounds, in this case can a human woman love a robot man, is the robot man even capable of feeling love? I feel it does an admiral job of this and gives us a response to these questions that is deep and multi-layered, the response the question deserves.

I also found this film to be quite funny, there was a lot of humour situated around how Steven’s robot character responded to Alma’s initial rejection and also his day to day life, which is odd by human standards. Most of this humour landed for me and made me chuckle, it was not a laugh out loud sort of film, but there were plenty of chuckle worthy moments.

Overall, a sweet film that has a lot to say about life, love and robotics.

Pros.

Eggert

Stevens

The sweet love story

Trying to answer the big questions

A number of funny moments

Cons.

The beginning is initially confusing as the film doesn’t do a good job explaining early on what is happening.

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer