Change Your Image
midnightvii-99840
Reviews
The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia (2013)
It's okay, but ...
The Haunting in Connecticut 2 ... I have three issues with it. 1) It's not a sequel to the original, 2) it takes place in Georgia, not Connecticut, and 3) outside of the daughter, Heidi, supposedly talking to a ghost named Mr, Gordon, absolutely every other aspect of the storyline is completely fabricated. So they are reaaaaally stretching the "based on a true story" claim with this one.
Overall it was a run of the mill haunting story with an interesting twist, but one you can see coming if you pay attention. Worth a watch though. It's not a bad movie by any means.
The Resort (2021)
This movie is bad, but borderline watchable
The premise of this movie actually interesting. Unfortunately it needed a much better script, much better actors, and much better cinematography.
Most of the movie looks like it was shot on an HD handycam, the dialogue is bad, and the ghost effects could have been done just as well in a high school stage play.
I would say it's worth a watch if you are a film student looking for ideas on how to (or how not to) put a movie together. Because that is what I would compare this to; a 1 hour and 16 minute student film.
Outside of that very specific audience, I can't recommend it. There are awful horror films out there that are much better than this one.
La Brea (2021)
Lesser version of LOST with a sinkhole instead of an island
The show is so-so at best. As I mentioned it is just LOST retold in a sinkhole/portal vs a magic moving island. Only LOST did it much better with better characters, story threads, and actors.
I know people have written that you can't complain about the special effects or sets because it's just a TV show. But that's just not true. Many TV shows have done better and looked better. It is definitely a valid complaint.
Outside of that, what bothers me most is the nonsensical writing at times. They carbon date a gold ring. It would take a two second internet search to learn you cannot carbon date a gold ring nor anything else that isn't organic. Another time when they are trying to demonstrate how the strong female lead is a strong female lead they have her refuse an offer of water while they're hiking because she runs every morning and has built up endurance ... which has nothing to do with needing to stay hydrated.
It's a neat concept overall. Just disappointed with the delivery and the lack of intelligent writing. Worth watching if you don't set your expectations very high.
Untold: Malice at the Palace (2021)
Okay doc, but an odd perspective
I remember this incident. I remember the backlash. But the way you hear the players explain it in this doc, you'd think it was a different incident altogether. No accountability whatsoever.
Yes, a fan threw a cup at Artest. But that didn't start the riot. Artest jumping into the stands and wailing on the (wrong) fan is what started it.
Don't get me wrong, the fan should have been ejected/arrested. But fans throwing things is not something new. As a player, you don't get to jump in the stands and attack them for it. That's not self defense.
Jackson's argument that he was defending his teammate? No he wasn't. If he was, he would have been trying to pull Artest out of the stands, not throwing haymakers. Same for O'Neil.
I will say that I didn't know O'Neil had his suspension shortened. I don't understand why. Clear video of him running across the court to sucker punch a fan who had already been separated from Artest. Again, he wasn't defending anyone, he was attacking someone. Fan was charged, as he should have been. But the sucker punch was completely unwarranted.
All in all, there was a whole lot of wrong that went down. But the cup didn't start the riot, Artest did.
Also of note, O'Neil says multiple times that if you saw the whole footage instead of the edited version, you would have a different opinion. I didn't see any new footage in this doc. And the footage I saw just reflects what I mentioned above.
Fear Street: 1666 (2021)
Part 3 means Part 1 and 2 no longer make sense **SPOILERS**
So in Part 1 the reanimated killers come back to life to kill the person who bled on the witch Sarah Fier's bones because ... I don't know. Reasons. But the characters make a point of saying the killers are passing right by everyone else and only going for the one who bled on the bones ... Except when they don't and they kill random people at the hospital. Whatever.
Point is, you bleed on the witch's bones, she curses you and sends her goons after you.
In Part 3 we find out Sarah Fier wasn't actually a witch, she was framed by Solomon, who was the actual person dealing with the devil. But the whole "reanimated killers are only going after the person who bled on the now non-witch's bones" rule is still in affect. Again, because ... Reasons. Except when they kill two cops in the mall even though they completely ignore everyone else and just follow the blood trails that were set up.
Now the witch wasn't a witch, the Sheriff from the Solomon family tree is the actual bad guy, and nothing that happened previously makes sense anymore. It's not a plot twist if you break the rules you've set for the story. It's just bad writing.
Wanted to like this series. Thought the second part was actually pretty good, albeit pointless once the third part came along. But overall, it was a trilogy of poorly done tropes thrown together into a nonsense plot. Better than some of the terrible horror films tossed out by Netflix. However, that doesn't mean it was a good series.