Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker movie review

Here's what you need to know; after their defeat at the battle of Crait, the resistance is left struggling to carry on in the face of might of the First Order, but a far greater threat is lurking on the edge of space, a massive fleet of warships under the command of Emperor Palpatine, the long dead ruler of the Galactic Empire who has returned from the grave to enact his revenge on the Jedi and finish off the last sparks of rebellion that stand between him and his mission of a Galaxy spanning Sith Empire.

So here we are, the journey that began with The Force Awakens has reached its end, and what a journey it has been. Whereas just a few years ago, Star Wars was a bastion of hope and nostalgic joy, for many, the intervening years as seen a complete downfall of this once beloved and respected series. I'm not one of those people but I'm not an idiot either, I have my issues with The Last Jedi and Solo, despite liking both of those films, and a lot of the issues I had with them have festered over the years, not enough to kill the Star Wars dream, at least for me, but I, even with my new found love for this series after The Force Awakens, could tell something wasn't right. Then the trailer for The Rise of Skywalker dropped and it revealed that Emperor Palpatine was returning, and more than anything else, I was curious as to how a character whose death carried so much weight in the original trilogy on a thematic level could be brought back at all, let alone if his return would make sense. I've seen this film three times now and luckily I've mellowed a lot on it, because the first time I saw it, it really pissed me off, and I will now explain to you why.

The film's reintroducing of Palpatine is gotten out of the way immediately, with the film's opening crawl establishing that Palpatine is back, because that's dramatic, before Kylo Ren flies out to Exegol to meet him. This opening sequence demonstrates one of the film's greatest strengths; it's presentation, because it is an absolutely beautiful film, even more beautiful than The Last Jedi, in fact. On the flip side however, it also demonstrates one of the film's weaknesses, Palpatine himself. His return isn't really explained, which wouldn't be as much of a problem if his return was established or foreshadowed in The Last Jedi, which it wasn't. Instead we get Palpatine just showing up and giving Kylo Ren a massive fleet of fully crewed and fully operational Star Destroyers, which he somehow built without anyone noticing, and we're just supposed to buy that he's even still alive after Darth Vader threw him to his death and then the ship he was on was blown apart and left to rot in the sea. It really was difficult for me to get over this the first time I saw the film, because it just stinks of damage control, like the writers had a plan for Kylo Ren and after The Last Jedi killed Snoke, they needed the next best thing, and Kylo Ren's ark is one of the best things about this film, so I suppose it would pay off if Palpatine's return made sense and didn't undermine the ending of Return of the Jedi, which it does.

On the plus side, however, there are a lot of things in this film I like, and one of those things is the characters. Even after all this time, I never saw Rey as a Mary Sue, and I still wouldn't in this film were it not for one simple reason that treads into spoiler territory, but she can do something in this film that no Jedi or Sith could do in any of the previous films, this thing was mentioned in Revenge of the Sith, but it was talked about as if it were a legend, no Force users in the films have used it before, but Rey can, and that's something I don't like. Her story in this film is ok, the film's wisely retcons her origins after The last Jedi threw them in the trash, and were it established in The Last Jedi, who her parents really are could have been a really cool twist, because it actually is, and it's something I desperately want to love. Finn and Poe are given less to do in this film, which is a shame, but a lot of what worked about them in The Force Awakens still works here, these are likable characters, even if they are hopelessly overshadowed by Rey, because she's the last hope, don't you know. One thing I'm not a fan of however is the love triangle element, simply because of how the film repeatedly robs Finn of chances to tell Rey something, which is almost certainly I love you, but this is always played for laughs and he never gets to say it, so why even bother. And how Poe is awkwardly shoved in there doesn't feel as genuine as it should because as far as we've seen in these films, Poe and Rey hardly know each other.

All the important original trilogy characters make an appearance in this film too, and to the film's credit, their handling of Leia and their closing of her story was done really well in my opinion, and Luke Skywalker acknowledging that he was wrong to run from his fear is an obvious attempt to clean up some of Rian Johnson's mess, as is him saying a Jedi's weapon should be treated with respect. Lando's in the movie, but he doesn't really do much, helping them out of a tight spot in the first act and coming to the rescue in the finale, and as usual, Chewie and the droids are along for the ride as well, but here's where we encounter another big issue. This film seems to have an issue with fake out deaths; first 'killing' Chewbacca, then undoing it a scene later, then later 'killing' C3P0, only for him to be fine again once they get back to base. At one point they even 'kill' Kylo Ren, only for him to be fixed up again in literally the same scene. Like Leia getting thrown out into space in The Last Jedi, it feels like this film's too scared to actually kill people, which is kind of annoying when it keeps happening like this. It's also kind of ironic that the film keeps doing this when it's main villain is a character that conclusively and thematically died in Return of the Jedi, but has returned seemingly for the sake of fan service and a need to have a bigger bad in place of Snoke. The film throws in a few new players as well, but they're even more of a mixed bag than the old ones.

Along their adventure, they find a droid who is really adorable, they find a clan of First Order defectors on Endor, and after two films of being mentioned in passing, the Knights of Ren finally show up, and are given barely anything to do besides look cool, which they don't really, and eventually get their arses kicked in the finale. Then there's a new First Order dick for our heroes to deal with after General Hux became a push over, which is yet another issue I have with this film's story, because at a point in the film, Hux makes a decision that's completely out of the blue and his motivations for it are about as childish and silly as I think you can get, and it's a decision that results in him being straight up replaced by new First Order dick. This is all standard Star Wars fair, but none of these new faces are that memorable when up against the big hitters the original trilogy and the small hitters of this sequel trilogy. Really though, the only character in this film that gets anything close to a satisfying ending is Kylo Ren, and even then, the film straight up ruins the moment. I really mean it ruins the moment too, as of all the things we didn't like about this film, me and the friend that I saw it with first were most pissed off by that thing that happens, I know how unhelpful that sounds but I'm sure you can figure it out. I'm sure you can also figure out my issue with the way the film ends; it's probably not surprising to know that the film ends on Tatooine, but what happens on Tatooine, or rather, who's there and who isn't really annoys me, it takes the one complete ark of this trilogy and does it a disservice.

A lot like The Last Jedi however, while Rise of Skywalker has an impressive number of narrative shortcomings, I'd say even more than its predecessor, it also has a shit ton of scenes that are just awesome. Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds is like this, and YouTube reviewer Chris Stuckmann said of that film that it has a bunch of scenes that are great to watch in isolation, but don't really come together in a film, and for me, that is Rise of Skywalker. This film has so many moments that I love, moments of action, moments of character conflict, quieter moments, scenes that are just plain awesome. For example, there's a scene where Rey and Kylo Ren are having a conversation using the Force and it breaks out into a Lightsaber fight, that sequence is cool as hell. There's a cameo in the film that is easily, undoubtedly the best scene in the film, one that pays homage to the new and the old while wrapping up this trilogy's most compelling character ark. And there are a few moments throughout that are just visually insane, like the opening sequence on Exegol with its fleet of hundreds of Star Destroyers rising out of the ground and looming in formation against a dark, stormy sky, back lit by ominous flashes of lighting. Or how about a moment in the same scene where Kylo Ren wonders through the ruins of Exegol, Sith statues hundreds of feet high towering over him as the same ominous lightning flashes and shrieks in the distance. How about the inevitable moment hope arrives on Exegol in the film's finale, or the moment that Rey encounters a vision of herself as a Sith lord and gets thrown into an incredibly brief lightsaber duel with it.

The film is just full of these little moments that make me smile, and they would make it easier to ignore the film's flaws if the film didn't keep reminding me of said flaws. I'm supposed to love the finale of a Star Wars film, but Rise of Skywalker's finale has as many moments that infuriate me as it has moments of excitement and Star Wars wonder. Unsurprisingly, the film's various action sequences are great too, there's an entertaining chase sequence as our heroes try to outrun the First Order on a pair of stolen Speeders, there's all the Lightsaber battles of the film, which are very good, and I'm a sucker for ship battles and dog fights in movies, so naturally in the finale where a puny pack of rebel fighters takes on the entire Final Order fleet is pretty dope, and it gets even more dope once the backup arrives. But even with how good this film's action and presentation is, even with all the little moments that are simply amazing, the film ultimately lacks the connective tissue that it needs to be a solid, enjoyable package. But as I said at the beginning, I've mellowed a bit after my second and third viewing of the film, and like The Last Jedi before it, the things I don't like, I still don't like, and the things I do like, I like more. I still can't honestly say that I've lost my love of this franchise because of this film, and I still don't think this is the worst one, that's still Attack of the Clones. It doesn't make me happy to compare this film to Halloween, but like that film, there are things that annoy me about this film, and no matter how much I want to like it, they get in the way.

Your Journey Nears Its End

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker is a yet another Star Wars film that's punched a hole in the Star Wars fanbase, and it's yet another Star Wars film that I really wanted to love, but ultimately ended up only liking. For every moment I loved, there was another that I couldn't stand, and unfortunately, the moments I love are just that, moments, while the things I didn't like are crucial elements of its story, because this film just barely manages to keep it together, right up to the point that it doesn't. I do think this is a better film than The Last Jedi, simply because this one is more fun, but neither of them come close to The Force Awakens, and ultimately, as the conclusion to the story that began in that film, and as a conclusion to the story that began with The Phantom Menace, it is disappointing.

Joker movie review

Here's what you need to know; life really hasn't been kind to Arthur Fleck, struggling to live day to day as a Clown in the political and social powder keg of Gotham city, but as one setback after another after another keeps piling on the pressure, Arthur is unwittingly positioned as the spark that will burn Gotham to the ground, turning the city on its head as he slowly and inevitably comes to see the world around him for the insane clown town it has become.

So when this film released a few months ago, it rustled some feathers to put it very, very mildly. Across the pond it seemed there was a full scale moral panic about Joker, with a police presence at screenings and the press running wild with paranoia about the film inspiring incel terrorism. Me being me, I have some thoughts on that whole shit show and will be sharing them in this review, because not since Get Out have I seen a film that takes a societal issue, drives and axe into it and throws the resulting gore on the screen for everyone to see.

Joker, right from the outset, can best be described as uncomfortable; not because I'm scared it'll inspire terrorism or some other bullshit, but because this film is so utterly and transfixingly effective at showing us the mind of a broken man. We see everything we need to see in the film's opening scene as Arthur applies his makeup in a mirror, stretching his mouth into a smile as a tear runs down his face. From there we get a brutal scene of him being attacked in an alley way, though it's not brutal for the beating itself, but for the path we know Arthur is on, a path he's been on for a long, long time. This film is all about Arthur, literally, I can only recall a single scene where he isn't in the spotlight. And not only is Arthur the entire point of the film, he is brilliant. Arthur Fleck is one of the most compelling protagonists I've seen this year, he's up there with Alita from Alita: Battle Angel, but while Alita was sweet and cute and lovable, Arthur's about as lovable as, well, as an unhinged social outcast. There's a constant sense of dread about him as you know that he's a ticking time-bomb, he's a guy who's never been given a break in his entire life; his childhood sucked in all kinds of ways that film delves into in an intriguing way, he is mocked and bullied by the people around him, he is dirt on the shoe of the world and as twisted as it sounds, you can't help but feel for the guy. You're almost certainly not going to agree with him by the end of the film, but there is a level of sympathy to him, one which I think is one of the key factors in the moral panic around this film.

Because Arthur Fleck isn't born evil, he is made evil, he's not some black and white demon that can be solely blamed for all the horrible things he does, he's just a man, he's broken and alone and the world doesn't care about him. Instead of getting the help he needed, getting thrown a bone, the world just continues to push him away, and in addition to what we learn of his past, this social ostracization plays a massive part in his transformation. That is the reason this film scares people so much in my opinion, because in this age of identity politics, people like Arthur have come to exist; sad, lonely, ostracized people who think the world hates them and have ended up resenting the world in return. The phrase incel has been thrown around a lot in relation to this film and for any normies who don't know what that means, it's a shortened term for involuntary celibate, someone who can't get laid, but like all progressive buzzwords, it's come to mean just about whatever the left wants it to mean, in this case, it's a quiet, lonely, socially outcast white guy. People like Arthur who are on the very bottom of society, no one wants anything to do with them, and to the progressives, these losers and incels are the problem with the world; they're evil and misogynistic and should be mocked and marginalised, because that's how anyone you don't like looks when you think you're morally righteous. Yet here's Joker, a film that looks deep into the mind of a loser who's been pushed around and stepped on his entire life and has finally decided to go full Tyler Durden and just burn it down, and while the film doesn't look on his actions heroically, it shows just how much society contributes to the creation of the Joker.

The film dabbles in mental illness to a significant degree and is a clear statement about the treatment of the issue, Arthur struggles with his condition and doesn't get the help he needs, instead the institution that was trying to help him gets its funding cut and he's left not knowing who to talk to or where he can even get his medication. It can be seen that the film has a political message, and while I can see aspects of that, I see the film's themes as much more personal and social, Arthur has no intention of becoming a political actor but becomes one anyway by being in the right place at the right time. What starts out as a bad situation becomes a catalyst for political upheaval in Gotham but it stirs something entirely different in Arthur, who starts to realise that he doesn't have to conform to the moral standards of Gotham's elite, and that he can embrace the nihilism he feels. This is another reason I think Joker has sparked a moral panic as just like in the film, it is the elite that feel they can determine and dictate morality, which, again, is ever more prevalent in our modern, politically correct world where saying or doing the wrong thing can put you in the sights of morally righteous busybodies who will try to destroy you. That happens to Arthur in the film as well when Murray plays a clip of him on his talk show, mocking his weak comedy and constant laughing. As Joker says in the film's finale, nobody thinks what it's like to be the other guy, Arthur tries to make something of himself and his hero mocks him for it on live TV.

As I said before, Arthur is made evil, but there is one thing he was born as; insignificant. Speaking personally here, this is the aspect of this film that scares me the most; because I'm sure we can all understand how it feels to not matter, or to at least think that you don't matter. It's a terrible feeling to feel insignificant, just another face in the crowd that nobody notices or cares about. Again going back to the film's themes of elitism and wealth inequality, Joker is one of countless people suffering in Gotham city, a nobody that the better off think they can ignore and mistreat, when in reality the opposite is true; take away a man's sense of meaning and expression and he'll eventually take it back. I say man very specifically here because how men as a whole have effectively been pathologized through progressive politics. And in case you think that sounds absurd, seriously, take a look at that Gillette add that kicked up a stink a few months back, listen to someone like Labour MP Jess Philips, or better yet, just listen to any feminist talk about men and male issues and you'll see it. Concepts like male privilege and toxic masculinity, the former being the notion that being a man is an advantage in society and that men must therefore be disadvantaged to make things fair, and the latter self-evidently being a display of contempt for masculinity and masculine characteristics. And going back to the notion of incels; it says a lot about progressives that they see incels as monsters; at once a frightening underbelly of society, filled with violence and misogyny, but also an army of weak, unimportant losers unworthy of sympathy or even recognition.

Like Gotham's elite, progressives have assumed themselves to be morally righteous and justify their bigotry towards and mistreatment of others with nice sounding untruths. Joker's exploring of the themes of masculinity aren't as prominent as its exploration of mental illness or ostracization, but like its themes of wealth inequality, it's hard to deny their presence; there is only so far you can abuse someone before they retaliate, and that premise is the heart of this film. Because as much as we want to see him become the Joker and do Jokery things, there is a deep sense of tragedy to Arthur's story, as if there was always a chance that his turn to villainy could've been averted but the rest of society didn't care enough to try. Joker is a film that makes you question your place in the world; you may not be a monster in the making yourself, but you may be helping to create one without even knowing it, carrying on with your own isolated life and not thinking of the effect you're having on others, just like Murray humiliating Arthur by playing the clip of his comedy set, just like anyone who faces the wrath of the twitter mob, or gets unfairly fired, or gets ridiculed and bullied for factors they can't control, or never gets given a chance by the opposite sex. It's a film that shows us how easy it is to just call them crazy and absolve ourselves of any responsibility for their actions, and while it can be argued that the film is heavy handed, its message of having empathy for others is something that was inevitably going to get under the skin of some people, because they don't have empathy and don't want to be told as much because they're the good guys.

I've talked an awful lot about the film's themes and Arthur in this review, but the truth is there isn't really anything else to discuss; the film's very, very light on side-characters and what it does have plays into the film's themes; Thomas Wayne for example is a wealthy, powerful mayoral candidate who thinks he can help the suffering people in Gotham, but then describes its impoverished masses as clowns, Murray's a talk show host who doesn't care who he hurts to get a laugh out of the audience, even if hurting them was never the intention or even something he considered. The film also dabbles in how the media and elite can warp public opinion; after the subway scene, one of the most crucial scenes in the film, Arthur's actions are portrayed as purely evil and cowardly as if they occurred within a bubble when Arthur and we, the audience know that isn't the case, but rather it was the culmination of several factors, and that no one party was solely to blame. But that doesn't matter as again, the elite and media of Gotham feel that they can define what is good and dictate that to the masses, sound familiar? Apart from Thomas Wayne, the film does have a couple other references to Batman; the setting of Gotham, and Arkham, Bruce and Alfred making an appearance, but Joker's connections to Batman are very minimal, which makes me believe Todd Phillips' quote of sneaking a real movie through the studio system. Despite being about the Batman villain, Joker isn't really a comic book movie at all, it's a character film that loosely uses the Batman comics as a backdrop, which is one of the complaints I've heard from people about it. It's not like the comics or it's not comic booky enough, but that just isn't the movie Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix made here, and as cynical as you want that to be, at the end of the day, this movie puts every comic book movie of 2019 in the shade, in fact it puts most movies of 2019 in the shade.


You Get What You Fucking Deserve

Joker is like an inkblot; it's a film that can be interpreted in a bunch of different ways and can mean wildly different things to different people. But what I find most curious about it is how much it says about people based on how they interpret it, which explains a great deal of the hysteria and outrage behind the film in my opinion. Joker is a film that holds a mirror up to its audience, it asks its audience to consider things that are personal, uncomfortable, even scary; it makes you ask just what part you play in the making of a monster. At the heart of this tragedy is Arthur and his gripping and heart-breaking descent into madness, a story that'll disappoint anyone hoping to see a comic book movie, but then it becomes a matter of expectations; go in wanting an action packed comic book movie that doesn't challenge you in any way, you're looking the wrong place, because Joker is so, so much more than at, and it is absolutely a must watch.

The Grinch (2018) movie review

Here's what you need to know; Christmas is right around the corner and the little town of Whoville is alight with excitement and festive cheer, all except for one grumpy greenie who cannot stand his neighbour's relentless and fanatical love of the holiday. But this Christmas will be different, because the Grinch is done trying to tolerate the festivities, this year he has a plan that he hopes will send Whoville's Christmas cheer up in flames, he is going to steal Christmas, a task that eventually proves harder and more futile than he could have ever expected.
The Grinch is a timeless tale, we've all heard, read or watched it at some point in our lives and it has touched many, many souls over the years. Depending on how you feel about it, it's a tale about someone learning the true meaning of Christmas, or a tale about someone opening his heart to others, or a tale about the commercialisation of Christmas, maybe less so that last one, but whatever the reading, it's a story that's as great now as it was sixty years ago. However, it being a short picture book makes it a bit difficult to adapt into a feature length film, an issue that the previous adaptation of the story; Ron Howard's 2000 film starring Kim Carrey faced. When I first heard that the studio behind Despicable Me was taking a swing at it, I was cautiously optimistic, fully expecting that it'd suffer from many of the flaws of the 2000 film, but at least be visually appealing as Illumination films usually are, and be wholesome and cute enough to be enjoyable, I've certainly liked some of their films in the past, after all. I've got to be honest though, when the film started and I realised that Pharrell Williams was narrating, my hopes waned a bit.

Something that's blatantly apparent is the film's presentation, because just like I expected, the film is really pretty; it's colours are explosive and pleasant, it's design is cute and appealing, it's certainly nicer to look at than the Ron Howard film, which I always thought was kind of dull and ugly. The two films couldn't be further apart in their presentation; Ron Howard's film looked dirty, whereas this film is squeaky clean, a good metaphor for the kind of films Illumination pump out, but regardless of that fact, they at least know how to make a film look good. But then there's the more annoying things about the studio, like their use of music and humour in their films, just take for example the Grinch song with plays during our introduction to the Grinch. In the Ron Howard film, the song is used while he's building his sleigh, but here it accompanies his morning routine, and the song itself is bad, I'm not a musically minded person, I can't explain the intricacies of a good or bad song, I can just tell you that I don't like it. Nor for that matter do I much care for Pharrell Williams as the narrator, simply because of how Illumination it is, and how much of a downgrade it is from the Ron Howard film being narrated by Anthony Hopkins. I know I've brought up the previous Grinch a lot already, but there's another thing I think that film did better, and sadly, that's the Grinch himself.

This film's Grinch is voiced by the one and only Benedict Cumberbatch, which is great, but far from being downright malicious like Jim Carrey's Grinch, Cumberbatch's Grinch is just a bit of an arsehole. Sure, there are moments of him hurting the people of Whoville, and his entire plan is inherently steeped in malice and vengeance, but he's not incapable of being nice to people, he's particularly kind and loving to his dog, Max, by Grinch standards at least. Later in the film he finds a new minion in Fred, and then actually lets him spend Christmas with his family, which is uncharacteristically nice for the Grinch. One thing both films have in common is the Grinch hating Christmas because of a bad experience, and while I think Jim Carrey's Grinch snapping because of bullies was more grim, Cumberbatch's Grinch's reasons for hating Christmas are, I think, a lot more safe, and both films make the mistake of making you understand why the Grinch hates the Whos because in both films, they're so damn annoying, and for similar reasons. Part of what makes the Grinch so appealing as a character is the simple truth that Christmas, for all of it's peace on earth and goodwill toward men, can be really annoying. The relentlessness of Christmas music, the overabundance of lights, it's annoying, and luckily I don't have anyone in my life as aggressively festive as the Whos in this film, but if I did, I would hate them, which I guess makes me a Grinch.

While this Grinch isn't quite a malicious monster, he's likable for a more mundane and relatable reason, he just wants to be left alone; a lonely life has left him bitter towards the Whos, and he's grown up just wanting them to go away and let him be in peace. His bitterness comes from his childhood in an orphanage, never having any family or friends to celebrate Christmas with, which is a pretty safe but effective justification for his hatred of the holiday. I don't mind this to be honest, but I do mind how heavy handed the film is with its themes. One very annoying thing about Illumination is how they can't seem to convey a message without beating you over the head with it, and The Grinch and it's themes of isolation and loving thy neighbour is no exception, with the film making, very, very liberal use of its miscast narrator, not to mention the entire Cindy Lou subplot, which is even more heavy handed about the true meaning of Christmas and appreciating who and what you have, which obviously ties back into our main story of the Grinch learning to love Christmas again. That Cindy Lou subplot though, my god. I get that adapting a short story into a film isn't going to be easy, but taking the focus away from the Grinch to pad it out with a story of a little girl wanting to help her overworked single mum isn't a good solution. It's not like this is a long film either; it's less than an hour and a half long, but even then, it really struggles with pacing.

It takes The Grinch an hour to get to the stealing Christmas part, you know, the point, and the lead up to it feels less like build up and more like filler as Cindy Lou and her friends form their plot to capture Santa, which obviously interferes with the Grinch's plan to steal Christmas, and the film really tires to make this story as cute as possible, but all the cute moments of the film go to the Grinch and Max, with the exception being the scene where the Grinch and Cindy Lou talk. At first, this scene made me smile, because it wasn't overly obvious what was going on, thematically, but in swoops the narrator to explain it to us. I know that The Grinch is a book that's aiming for a young audience, but this film is clearly aiming for a family audience, it doesn't have to be so on the nose, yet it is, and the entire subplot of Cindy Lou helping her mom never actually gets a meaningful payoff. All the payoff naturally goes to the Grinch, who has a genuinely heartfelt moment where he apologises to the Whos for trying to ruin their Christmas, in fact, most the film's ending works really well, as he awkwardly attends the Whos' Christmas dinner and finally embraces the spirit of Christmas, and then an annoying meme and insufferable end credits song spoil the moment. Because I guess Illumination doesn't think its enough to just have a quiet moment, or even go five minutes without trying to be hip and fresh.

Pharrell Williams as the narrator doesn't work, referencing a meme that was already years old may make a child laugh, but I'm a jaded 22 year old who sees that shit for what it is. It's one thing to be safe, which all Illumination films are; they'll never make a Coco or an Up or a How to Train Your Dragon, but they'll never fail to make a Cars or a Trolls, I digress. It's another thing entirely to actively pursue an avenue that the film makers and studio types just don't understand, which is why memes and slang in movies literally never work, but at least it's not The Emoji Movie. The Grinch also uses a lot of Christmas music, a lot, which isn't very surprising, and some of it's really good; I'm particularly a fan of the film's version of 'Zat You Santa Claus, but me and me mates sing Louis Armstrong for shits and giggles, so what's new. And since I haven't directly addressed it yet, the scene where he steals Christmas is admittedly pretty sweet, the best scene in the film by a mile, and in other positives, a lot of the film's visual humour is pretty funny, be that slap stick and basic, or less obvious things like the kid who was sad he couldn't play with his toy boat on the frozen pond. Again, Illumination's films are like this, all of them are mostly unremarkable, but they've never made an outright bad film, and with all its shortcomings, I'd actually say this is the best of them overall.

Time to Steal Christmas

The Grinch is fine, I feel as though I'd have a lot of nostalgia for it had I seen it as a kid, just like I do for the Ron Howard film. Like that film though, it has problems, big problems; a lot of the film is boring bloat, trying to fill a feature length runtime with an unremarkable and pointless parallel story about a little girl, which isn't done as badly as in the Ron Howard film, but The Grinch's story was so elegant and simple that practically any addition to it will feel like a foreign organ. The Grinch as a character isn't bad, and occasionally the film hits some good beats thanks to the odd good joke or subtle moment, and it's visually very nice and appealing, but this is a film coming from the McDonalds of animation studios, it's good, it's fine, but it's not special or memorable, and like the Big Mac, it's execution is messy. Still, if you've just stuffed your face with turkey and mash and now you want to follow it up with a Christmasy film for the whole family, The Grinch will get the job done.

Halloween Week Revival: Ghostbusters: The Video Game review

Here's what you need to know; two years after saving the world from Vigo and his New Year's Eve apocalypse, business is good for the Ghostbusters as they keep New York safe from the paranormal threats it faces. But before their new recruit has time to settle into his new career of Ghostbusting, a city-wide supernatural event heralds the start of yet another ghostpocalypse, and with an explosion of paranormal activity throughout the city, the Ghostbusters once again have to face the threat head-on and save the world from a disaster of biblical proportions.

As I've made painfully clear throughout my years on this blog, I am quite the fan of Ghostbusters, certainly not the biggest, and certainly less so than other things, but my love of this franchise runs deep. For Halloween this year I even won a goodie bag and a teddy bear at work for my costume; a combination of a hideous but very spooky shirt and a Proton Pack, built by yours truly from foam sheets and floor mats, along with other bits and bobs I could scavenge like toilet paper tubes, old belts and a garden hose. Like most Ghostbusters fans though, my passion for this series has been strained, but one good thing to come out of that movie was a resurgence of the Ghostbusters that most people actually want; there's a new movie coming out next year and this year, Atari and Terminal Reality's 2009 Ghostbusters game got a rerelease on current gen systems, and right around Halloween too, so you know the drill, let's stick it to the norm and spend Christmas getting our spook on with the Ghostbusters.

But before I even started playing the game, I was stopped in my tracks by its memorial to Harold Ramis, which is something I genuinely didn't see coming and it put a huge smile on my face, it's a tiny touch that actually made the game feel just a tiny bit more special for me, because the day he died, the world lost a legend, and this game is a six hour long love letter to arguably his most popular work. And the game really drives home its homages and influences, with an opening sequence very in line with the films, even featuring the old Columbia Pictures logo. And while it isn't as intense as the opening scenes of either of the films, it sets the stage as well as they did, hinting at the larger picture of the story and throwing us in at the deep end with a spooky encounter. In a lot of ways, Ghostbusters: The Video Game is more like a movie than a game, which has repercussions I'll get to later, but for now, let's talk story and characters. The Ghostbusters being deep, dynamic characters with compelling arks was something the two films didn't even bother with, nor did they need to because these characters were outstanding out of the gate. This hasn't changed for the game, nor have the characters themselves changed in the two years since Ghostbusters 2; they're exactly the same as they were in the films; Egon's an autistic tech-head, Venkman's a deadpan ladies' man that doesn't take anything seriously, Winston's the sane, normal one, and Ray's the slightly less autistic, mildly over-enthusiastic book worm who never grew up. 

All four are portrayed by the cast of the films, with many of the game's supporting characters like Walter Peck and Janine also being voiced by their movie actors, which isn't necessary but god damn is it cool, and it really helps in immersing you in the world of the films, less like a video game and more like an extension of the films themselves, and that carries over to its writing. The game is full of the usual constant babble that the likes of Egon and Ray would come out with, explaining sci-fi and paranormal stuff in a way that doesn't actually make sense, but like in the movies, it works because it's never too heavy handed, sure, it sounds like nonsense, but the game never makes you feel stupid for thinking so, and as the films did, it's often unapologetic about the absurdity of a lot of their long winged and overly technical observations. And also like the films, the ridiculous technicalities of the plot don't make it any harder to follow, you're still going to get all of the important story beats and understand what's going on, and while the story isn't that bold or new, especially for Ghostbusters, it's so fitting to the world of Ghostbusters that it's almost comfort food, which I'm pretty sure is by design. Were this a movie, it'd probably be awesome, but there are some aspects of the story and writing that I think are lacking. Firstly, the game isn't as funny as either of the two films, though it's still funnier than that other film, not that that's a challenge. A lot the game's comedy is safer than the films and while it still has its smarter gags, none of them are ever as smart as some of the comedy of the films.

All this is to say that Peter never wins over the mayor by appealing to his political ambitions or that Ray never calls Peck Dickless, which is odd because this game has a lot of fun with the franchise's horror undertones. This really is a non issue because these characters could probably still be entertaining as the stars of a sit-com. One weak link however is the Rookie; the character you play as and the perspective through which the game's events are presented, because he is a silent protagonist and I don't know why. I have a hunch that the game's dedication to fan service might have come at the expense of the Rookie, who is ultimately a fifth wheel in the shadow of Ray, Egon, Peter and Winston. Eventually I'll publish my review of Borderlands 3, and in that review I talk about the game's issue of having a protagonist that's disconnected from its story, and this game is like that but in reverse; rather than talking to NPCs and never actually influencing the story or appearing in cutscenes, the Rookie appears in cutscenes but never talks and never actually influences the story, either way, the disconnect is there, at least this game has the advantage of having a story that doesn't suck, with characters that are actually charming. Anyone who's watched the film will also be familiar with the game's villain, one Ivo Shandor, an architect and cult leader in life and aspiring god in death. And something I adore about the game is how its story unfolds; specifically how it introduces Shandor and builds him up as an antagonist, one who always had a backup plan in place in case Gozer somehow failed, and while he's not a deep or even very frightening villain, he is a perfect villain for a narrative follow up to the films, cannon or not.

Him being the big bad does somewhat undermine Gozer though, especially with how Gozer is portrayed in this game, but once again, I feel that the game's dedication to fan service came with catches. All of this being said though, this is still Ghostbusters; even though it's as much as four times the length of either of the films, this story is distinctly in the spirit (pun indented) of them, certainly more so than other films we needn't talk about today. But the one big, obvious difference to the movies is that this is a game, and Ghostbusters takes a slightly different approach; in that prioritising gameplay, which is almost always the safer bet, wasn't this game's intention. In this game, you are thrown into what is essentially a Ghostbusters theme park ride, filled with nostalgic highlights of both the films. You get let loose in the Firehouse, you fight Slimer in the Sedgewick Hotel, you chase the Librarian ghost through the New York Public Library and fight Stay Puft on a roof top. One aspect of the gameplay that the game absolutely had to nail was the actual Ghostbusting, and to the game's credit, Busting does in fact make you feel good. Your weapons against the spooky spooks are the Proton pack and its various functions; starting with your typical Proton stream, before unlocking a Boson dart, which functions similarly to a rocket launcher. Later you unlock gadgets like the Shock blast, which is the game's take on a shotgun, a slime gun for more environmental threats and solving puzzles, and eventually the Meson collider, a machine gun type weapon that fires homing rounds.

On the surface, this is all very straight forward; you essentially have four weapons, each with alternate fire options like a stasis beam that I never felt the need to use and a slime tether for sticking things together. But things get a little more complex when you take on the game's enemies; with some of them needing to be dispersed by just shooting them, and others needing to be captured using your Proton stream and trap. Each enemy is vulnerable to different weapon types; for example, you will encounter black slime enemies that are weak to the slime gun, or zombie type enemies that are weak to the shock blast, which quickly becomes your best friend in many of the game's encounters. The dispersible ghosts are taken out by just blasting them and taking down their health bar, which is represented with a circle overlay when your crosshair is on a ghost. The non-dispersible ghosts are the same, but rather than killing them, you weaken them enough to be susceptible to a capture stream, one that you can throw at them with your bumper or that'll get thrown at them automatically when they are weak enough. Once you've got a ghost, you have to wrangle it into a trap, which involves awkwardly dragging and throwing a ghost around until it's above the trap, then keeping it in the capture cone while the trap pulls it in. And this is where the game is at its most enjoyable; the feeling of bagging a ghost after mauling it into the trap literally never gets old, and you can also upgrade the trap to let you slam dunk enemies by slamming them directly into the trap, which is unbelievably satisfying to do.

All of your equipment can be upgraded in the game, and these are upgrades you're going to want because without them, a lot of the equipment is harder to use. All of the weapons have unlimited ammo but cause the pack to overheat, with different weapons overheating the pack faster than others. You can manually vent the pack before it goes critical, at which point you'll be unable to use your weapons briefly while the pack cools down. The game also goes the Dead Space route by not featuring a hud, instead displaying relevant information like weapon type, heat level and health on the pack itself, as explained to you by Ray in the game's little tutorial level. And on top of blasting spooks with a Proton pack, the game, as I said before, completely nails the feeling of being a Ghostbuster, it puts you in the boots of a Ghostbuster about as well as I think a game will ever do, but outside of those spurts of absolute magic, the game becomes a bit less magical, we'll get to that, but before we address problems, one other slightly marred strength the game has is its atmosphere. The game heavily relies on music on the films, like, very heavily, which isn't necessarily a problem, especially since Ghostbusters had an amazing soundtrack. My issue with it is similar to my issue with Shin Godzilla and its use of older Godzilla music, because I apparently can't stop myself from likening something to Godzilla or bringing him up. On the one hand, it's great to hear this music because it's great music, but on the other hand, it's the same music, used for the sake of nostalgia whether it fits the scene or not, and since this is a video game, that issue is compounded. 

This being a six hour long game, you're going to get a bunch of different environments, ghosts and scenarios thrown at you, but all of it is accompanied by the same score.  This is another one of those non issues if I'm being honest, as well as another one of those things where the dedication to fan service comes with catches, because if you've not a die-hard fan of this series and you're playing this game for some reason, by the end, you will hate this soundtrack and never want to hear it again. It's equally odd because the soundtrack from the film doesn't really lend itself to atmospheric horror, and there are times where this game dabbles in that. For example, there are two levels in the Sedgewick Hotel that really go off the deep end in building a creepy environment, the game makes the lower levels of the Library genuinely terrifying to be in, and in the game's later stages, you're traversing gothic ruins of lost islands and supernatural cemeteries. These environments are genuinely creepy, yet a lot of the time, you're hearing Ghostbusters' charming, chirpy score, of which even the spookier tracks lack the atmospheric quality to, as I said before, fit the scene. But that's as much of an issue as you want it to be, and the game does have some actual issues that can't be ignored. I'm going to say it, there are some sequences in the game that are complete bullshit; areas where the game overwhelms you with ghosts or puts you in a position where you have to solve environmental puzzles while also being attacked by ghosts.

For example, in one area of the game, you are separated from the other Ghostbusters and have to fight your way to them, and the game locks you in a room with a bunch of black slime portals that constantly spawn smaller enemies, as well as throwing a pair of golems at you, sound easy? it isn't. How about a sequence earlier in the game where you're on a narrow walkway with a golem charging you, the walkway is barely wide enough for the Golem, so how does the game expect you to dodge him, or how about a room that has an abundance of possessor ghosts and a bunch of civilians for them to possess, which they will do often within seconds of you sliming them out of the last host they were in. But my favourite part, and most people's favourite part, I'm sure, is the Stone Angels. It's in the last few areas of the game, you have to break open a magic gate by throwing Stone Angels at it, and this brief sequence of the game fucking sucks. Imagine, if you will, being tasked with getting flying enemies to hit a target on the ground while said enemies are moving really fast, and your tools are an inconstantly reliable slime tether and a capture stream that's about as precise and easy to control as a bro after a heavy night at the bar, and all while you wrestle with the game to get these things to hit the gate, they're constantly spawning, constantly hitting you, and are able to kill you in two or three hits, and are accompanied by ground enemies as well, and did I mention they keep spawning.

Call of Duty, an example of a game where unfair artificial difficulty is
offset with regenerating health, getting jam in your eyes means it's time
to sit behind a rock or wall for a few seconds

Regrettably, it's quite common for me to get really annoyed with a game, or anything really, but there aren't many games with sequences that I absolutely dread, and this is one of those games. I got so fed up after the twentieth time that I died that I dropped the difficulty to easy and finally got it done, albeit after five more failed attempts. It's instances like this that really highlight this game's shortcomings as an actual game, and it's a shame because the game can be amazing, as I said before, this game can make you feel like a Ghostbuster, there's just those moments that don't just bring the game down, they downright ruin it, derailing any fun you were having by playing dirty with you, and not the fun kind of dirty, if you know what I mean. This is a game that makes me think of the difference between difficulty and artificial difficulty; there are games like Doom, tough but fair, then there are games that throw you into unwinnable positions, encounters where the deck is stacked against you not through the numbers, cunning and strength of its enemies, but through damage and health numbers and other artificial nonsense. A lot of games with regenerating health have this problem, because having infinitely regenerating health allows you to get around infinitely taking damage from enemies that can shrug off a shotgun shell to the chest but put you in the ground with a couple of hits. That isn't to say games that do this can't still be fun, I talking about one right now and I'm obviously going to tell you to play it, Borderlands does this too, and I love those games to death, but this game, Borderlands, Call of Duty, all struggle with finding the line between manageable and annoying and can therefore get extremely frustrating.

You May Feel a Little Tingle

Ghostbusters: The Video Game is a dream come true if you're a Ghostbusters fan, it has everything you would want; the original cast, the catchy music, the dry sense of humour, a spooky story that's loaded with fan service and is still as close to Ghostbusters 3 as we'll probably ever get, sorry Ghostbusters: Afterlife. It lets you strap on a pack and throw Proton streams at ghosts, which is something most people have probably wanted, let alone Ghostbusters fans, just as most people have probably wanted to swing a lightsaber at some point. But if you're not the biggest fan of Ghostbusters and are coming at this as a game, your experience will be quite different. It's clear that the majority of the passion and polish went into its story and characters, which is entirely respectable when you're dealing with the goddammed Ghostbusters, but it comes at the expense of a refined and polished gameplay experience, because this game often bounces across the spectral spectrum from some of the most fun you can have in a game to so infuriating that you'll never want to play it again.

For every couple of moments of pure magic as you maul a ghost into a trap, there's a moment of pure frustration as the game throws a sudden and sharp difficulty spike at you, one that's unfairly tough in spite of your impressively sized and wonderfully realised assortment of Ghostbusting gadgets. This is a rare situation then where I'm left not knowing how to recommend it, as this game seems uniquely inaccessible to people outside of its target audience, kind of like the 2016 film but in a good way, and unlike that film, it at least knows where its target audience is, and it isn't on Twitter. As a game, it's alright, not too special, and occasionally intolerable, but as a follow up to Ghostbusters and its sequel, it really is something special, and I'd say it's worth playing.

Halloween Week Revival: Sleepy Hollow movie review

Here's what you need to know; with the turn of the century looming, Constable Ichabod Crane holds firm to his belief that science and reason can explain the unexplainable. But his beliefs are about to be put to the test when he is sent to investigate a series of murders in the quiet little hamlet of Sleepy Hollow, a place gripped with fear and rife with tales of a headless horseman that prowls the woods, and from there, Crane finds himself quickly going down a rabbit hole that'll see him question everything he believes.
When I was a kid, my dad would often show me films I was way too young to be watching; Fright Night, From Dusk Till Dawn, Evil Dead, and while I've grown up to love some of them, mainly Fright Night, all the others left me with was vivid memories of the scariest things I'd ever seen, and there's no other film that bored its way into my nightmares quite like this one; Sleepy Hollow. And since Halloween is less of a day and more of a lifestyle, and I'm both very lazy and very grinchy, there are also few films as fitting to the occasion as this one, and you only need to watch five minutes of it to see why.

Sleepy Hollow's opening sequence is peak Halloween; as Van Garret's carriage trundles through a corn field in the dead of night, carrying the will that starts this ball rolling, he looks out of the window and sees a scarecrow looming over the crop, a jack-o'-lantern atop its shoulders. Things quickly escalate from there are a mystery horseman rushes past the carriage, and after the sound of a sword unsheathing and the whoosh of a swing, Van Garret looks out the window to see his driver missing his head. Van Garret tries to escape into the corn, eventually finding himself at the scarecrow, where the mystery horseman relieves him of his head, with a close up of the scarecrow's face with Van Garret's blood on it. This opening sequence tells you everything you need to know, it establishes Sleepy Hollow not as a horror film, but more as a mood piece, because it's not just this intro that's peak Halloween, it's the entire film. It being Tim Burton, there are also a lot of Tim Burtonisms in this film, an obvious example of which is Johnny Depp playing an eccentric, pale faced weirdo, this time he's Ichabod Crane, a New York police Constable who firmly believes that there is a better way to do justice, much to the annoyance of his superiors. Crane is one of the film's most charming elements and as a protagonist in this kind of story, he's perfect. He's polite, well meaning, determined, but he's also squeamish and cowardly, lacks concern for judgement of his occupation and practices, and is way out of his depth when he comes face to face, or rather not, with the Headless Horseman.

Crane's character also has an element of mystery to him as he regularly has nightmares of himself as a child, slowly remembering the horrors of his childhood, and it gets pretty fucked up as we learn just where his scepticism of religion came from, as well as the odd scars on his hands. There is a sense that the world is against him in this film, from his introduction as an unconventional constable preaching a 'better' way of dealing justice, to his arrival in Sleepy Hollow, a cramped, foreboding setting, rife with fear, distrust and hostility, but it's Crane's commitment to justice and determination to solve the murders, even in the face of so much doubt, adversity and unfathomable horror, that makes him such a compelling protagonist. As weak and cowardly as he is, he just wants to do the right thing, which puts in conflict not just with the Horsemen, but with the elders of Sleepy Hollow. The elders serve less as characters and more as functions of the plot; with each one having a hand in the Van Garret conspiracy, they're an insular gang, more than happy to keep their secrets if it means keeping their heads, literally. They're what give the film its twists and turns, with a solid amount of revelations and red herrings to keep the intrigue alive into the film's final act. Baltus Van Tassel, one of our red herrings, also completely kills it with his story of the Horseman, which is one of the film's coolest scenes, one of, but since it's Michael Gambon, that's not very surprising.

Then there's his daughter, Katrina, serving in the dual role of love interest and yet another red herring, but like a lot of romances in films, or good ones anyway, it's very much in the shadow of the mystery of the Horseman and the Van Garrets. In typical murder mystery fashion, the film is full of suspects, and among them is weaved a genuinely compelling web of mystery and betrayal. But sadly, this isn't a film where the innocent can have peace, with the suspects being whittled down as much through elimination as by Crane's investigations. The film isn't special as a who done it though, it's special in other areas, but that aspect of the film is very serviceable, and made more so by its intriguing and likable heroes. One character that stands out is Masbath, simply because he's the only character in the film that has balls; an orphan that becomes Crane's apprentice, he's seemingly the only person in the town with the bravery to take on the mystery, while also being intelligent enough to not get himself killed. But what makes him so damn likable is his comedic timing; he's the funniest character in the film, even more so than Crane with all of his Johnny Deppisms, and the pair have a lot of great scenes together. But Crane and Masbath, as charming and funny as they can be together, are both in the shadow of the real show stealer of Sleepy Hollow; the Horseman.

How this film's Headless Horseman can best be described in my opinion is a cross between Michael Keaton's Batman and a T-800, and the film sells both the mystery and horror of him and his relentless badassery brilliantly. For a while, you don't get a good look at him, the film obscuring him with close ups and visual obstructions, building to the moment where he is fully revealed, bursting from the treeline, sword in hand to claim the night's victim. He is a constant presence throughout the film, and the scenes where he appears are easily the best. His origins are morbid and intriguing; being a mercenary fighting the Americans in the revolutionary war for the sake of causing death and destruction, before being beheaded and buried in the western woods. But despite being a psychotic butcher in life and a killing machine in death, he's just so damn cool, again, he's like a T-800, he just keeps coming. The scenes of people trying to fight him are a lot of fun, as brief and futile as they are, and in addition to being a master swordsman, the Horseman is a clever bastard, as demonstrated in more than one of the film's standout moments. He carries a lot of this film to be honest, you're always looking forward to seeing him again, as despite not having a head, the Horseman exhibits a lot of personality through his body language and behaviour. Though he was a monster in life, in death, he is really just a tool, his kills are not indiscriminate, and the payoff he gets in the film's final moments is amazing, it's absolutely amazing, with everyone getting what they want, except for our real monster, our conspirator, who the Horseman drags back to hell with him, finally finding the peace that was taken from him.

Like a lot of good horror films, Sleepy Hollow's strength is as much in its presentation as it is in its characters and storytelling; a badass villain and charming and endearing band of heroes is one thing, but if your film has all the flair of an overly floury gingerbread, it'll always feel like it's missing something, and luckily, Sleepy Hollow isn't lacking in its presentation. As I said at the beginning, this film is peak Halloween; the setting, the costumes, the music, the violence, the colours, everything about this film just screams spooky. The music, composed by Danny Elfman, is instantly memorable; it's creepy, intense, atmospheric, and is as beautiful in the film's quieter moments as it is in the film's more bombastic sequences of action and murder. It's a soundtrack that once made me shudder, but now it fills me with a sort of sick glee. And while the film's visual style may look dull and unappealing at first glance, it doesn't take long for the mood of the film's visuals to seep in, for the drab, bleak skies and lifeless, misty forests of the film to take on a life of their own. And in stark contrast to the bleak colours, the film frequently explodes with colour, just one colour though, red. Sleepy Hollow's violence is very extreme, even if the violence itself is relatively tame, it's the film's use of blood and colour that makes these moments so effective, because the film's blood is very red, too red, like the colour of a bell pepper, and it sticks out like a sore thumb against the rest of the film's muted and desaturated appearance.

This is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective, either it looks cheap and silly, or it gives the film's moments of horror a sense of power and weight that they otherwise wouldn't have had, like, for example, seeing the bright red blood covering a white fence post after the Horseman harpoons someone through the chest with it, it's something that sticks out, pun intended, its something visually striking, and that's a good way to describe the film in general, it looks striking. Sleepy Hollow is a very visual film, and this aspect of it is actually one of the best things about it, and in a novel twist, it's the moments when the film turns up the colour that are the most intense and violent. Surely at this point I'd have brought up the film's negatives, but I don't think this film has any glaring flaws, sure, some of the CG is a bit rough around the edges, it is twenty years old, after all, but I think I said this in my Hellboy review, CGI is a tool, and bad CG doesn't break a film, bad CG can add to the mess if the film is already broken like Hellboy, but Sleepy Hollow isn't broken, it's a cohesive, moody little bundle of horror, one where the presentation more than makes up for the Witch's CG snake eyes looking a bit shit. Aspects of its storytelling can also be a bit corny, it being a period film and all, but once again, it's only as bad as you allow it to be, you can go along for the ride and find that this adds even further to the film's quirky charm, and feels more at home than if these eighteenth century Americans were talking like it was 1999. The film is just too charming to be bogged down by its flaws, its too weird and too quirky and, to put it bluntly, too sincere, which is in no way a bad thing.

Truth is Not Always Appearance

Sleepy Hollow is The Polar Express of Halloween movies, it's not perfect, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it is a film that feels so utterly at home in the season, while a good Christmas film fills you with wonder and joy and warmth, a good Halloween film oppresses you with its atmosphere and mood, relishing in the horror and joy of the holiday in all of its sugary goodness and spooky traditions. And me being much more of a Halloween person, that makes this film right up my street, and while it may not be a Halloween tradition for me like John Carpenter's Halloween, it's a film I'll watch from time to time with the same joy and excitement as the time it stopped terrifying me. Sleepy Hollow is definitely worth watching. 

Halloween Week Revival: Hellbound: Hellraiser II movie review

Here's what you need to know; in the wake of the death of her father and her run in with the Cenobites, Kristy's found herself within the walls of a psychiatric hospital under the care of Dr. Channard and his assistant, Kyle, who struggle to believe her tale of Hell and demons. But Dr. Channard is not the caring sort, having his own, more sinister plans with Kirsty and the Cenobites, and when Kirsty hears a cry for help from her Hellbound father, she makes the mistake of putting herself in the path of the Cenobites once again.
Yes, let's address the elephant in the room, it's Christmas eve and I'm posting a Halloween review, there's late, and then there's this, but I said in my last Halloween review that this year it'd be six, and it's still going to be six, late or not. And if I'm honest, I wanted and excuse to watch Hellraiser II after watching the first last year and being left very confused and unnerved by a film I felt dirty about liking. Fast forward to now and I'm still very confused and unnerved, so merry Christmas boys and girls, let's get our kink on with the forces of Hell.

Hellraiser II kicks off right where the first left off, with Kirsty in a hospital bed being questioned about the murders while cops search her father's home and make one gruesome find after another. But in between the sort of previously-on sequence and the film proper is an intriguing little prologue where we see pre-Pinhead Doug Bradley opening the box and getting dragged to Hell. This scene is presented without context because Hellraiser II is a film that respects your intelligence, because it pays off later, like its predecessor, Hellraiser II isn't about instant gratification. That is unless you want gore, because the sequel takes the gore of the first film to new and even more extreme extremes, having a man without skin grow out of the floor is child's play compared to this film's offerings. Like the first film, Hellraiser II's characters are interesting, because some of them are likable, like Kirsty and Kyle, some even have good comedic moments like Tiffany, a mute patient at the hospital that finds herself lost in Hell after opening the box. Then some are likable in a different sense; Channard for example is one creepy mother fucker, being completely predictable as a mad doctor with evil plans for his helpless patients. Julia, who returns from the first film, is even more slimy and cunning than she was before, and I'll be honest, a lot of her scenes actually made me pretty uncomfortable. Yes, me, who always moans about the lack of blood in films, did genuinely struggle to get through Hellraiser II. We'll get to why later but in the meantime, let's talk about story, because this film has one, kind of.

Like the first film, these characters are not deep, not in a conventional sense, but they never feel shallow thanks to the film's effective establishing of their motivations, and just like last time, this is where things start to go a little crazy. The film has it's more wholesome side for sure, Kirsty wanting to save her father and being willing to dive back into Hell to do it, and Tiffany, an innocent girl who gets dragged into this mess by Channard and his plan. And that's where the wholesomeness ends really, because Channard wants to go to Hell and Julia wants... I don't know, I actually don't know what Julia's plan was in this film. Channard embodies the film's more, shall we say, exploratory elements, as he wants to go to Hell because of his obsession with the mind, he wants knowledge and experience. But that's one thing the first has on this one, its story and character motivations were much clearer and more compelling; Frank wanted to be whole again and Julia helped him because she wanted to fuck him again, and Kirsty is our innocent girl that gets caught in the middle. Frank Cotton also returns briefly, and his motivations in this film are both very interesting and very, very fucked up, completely embodying this film's more sexual side in a very discomforting way. That being said, this film taking its characters to Hell is a perfect story for a sequel to tell, and it allows the film to be more extreme in its imagery and allows the Cenobites to have a lot more fun than they did last time.

The Cenobites are in Hellraiser II more, that's true, and the film also dabbles in their pasts, but the film still isn't about them, it's about Kirsty looking for dad and Julia doing whatever she was doing. But like before, when they show up, it's awesome, their reunion with Kirsty in particular is an amazing scene, maybe my favourite scene in the film. But with this film not really being about them, how their story ends in the film does come across as a bit anticlimactic, and sadly, that's not the only issue I have. Probably the biggest one I have after the weaker story is some the film's effects and editing. I'm going to sing the praises of some of the effects later, but some other effects in this film are really rough around the edges; one of the downsides of sending your characters to another dimension in 1988. There's an uncanny look to a lot of the effects in this film, and sometimes it looks really, really good, and other times it looks like the film's ten years older than it actually is. I'd say this is one of those films where you need to be in the right mood, but that's a bit of an understatement, because being in the right mood isn't the only requirement, making sure your parents never find out is another, and perhaps most importantly, making sure you, yourself know what you are in for before you watch it, because if not, you might find getting through it to be a struggle. I'm not one to turn squeamish in a film, one of my favourite films is The Thing and that film is gruesome like few others, but this one is worse, much worse.

On top of the people without skin, this film has a scene where a hospital patient goes to town on himself with a razor blade, imagining that he's covered in flesh eating maggots. Then we have Julia, without skin, getting all seductive with Channard after writhing around the floor in pursuit of our helpless maggot man. In addition to not having skin, we later get to see it literally get peeled off of her, along with the usual Hellraiser fair of chains, hooks and needles. Nothing is ever as visually retched as Frank getting torn apart in the finale of the first film, but overall, the sequel is a lot more graphic, to the point that it might hurt the film's ability to tell a story. While Hellraiser II lacks any conventional sex scenes, it makes up for it by leaning hard into this series' more sexual elements. If sadomasochism isn't your cup of tea, this film will scare you, like truly scare you, and even me and my hardened heart sat in my chair when the film ended, clutching my Doom Slayer for protection. I'm not going to lie though, as uncomfortable as a lot of this film was, I was leaning forward in my chair for a majority of the runtime, I wanted to see the payoff of every scene. Just like the first film, I was fascinated, the world building is as strong here as it was in the first, made all the stronger by the film's new setting of Hell itself, an endless labyrinth overseen by the Leviathan, the god of Hell, a being that's never really explained, nor does it need to be, because the mystery is a lot more intriguing. It's a strength both of these films have, and in this case, when combined with the usually amazing visual effects, it makes the film's shortcomings easier to ignore.

Time to Play

Hellbound: Hellraiser II is a lot like its predecessor, but like a lot of sequels do, it goes bigger, and that might not always be better. A lot of the strengths of the first film have carried over; the good characters, world building and amazing visual effects, but this time some of those characters' motivations are less clearly defined, and some of the special effects are rough around the edges, which I think are both downsides of Hellraiser II raising the stakes in the way it does. That being said, this film is every bit as intriguing and fucking weird as the first, the effects that have held up all look amazingly vile, and the film's sadomasochistic elements are still as gripping as they are discomforting. Hellraiser II is another one of those films that really isn't for everyone, but once again, I did kind of like it, and I'd say it's worth watching.