The original Wreck-It Ralph was a delightful 8-bit chunk of retro arcade goodness that did for old-school video-games what Toy Story did for action figures and dolls and (of course) old toys. That is to say, an exercise that was equal part adult-baiting nostalgia and kid-friendly Disney designed for maximum entertainment value for all ages, without forgetting to tug at the heart-strings for good measure.
While perhaps not as enthusiastically received as the Toy Story franchise- which, lest we forget, only got better over time and subsequent sequels- Ralph was nonetheless successful in its aims to win over those raised on a steady diet of video-games over the years, which is, after all, inherently more of a niche audience.
Perhaps recognizing that after the fact, the second installment, Ralph Breaks the Internet, casts its net considerably wider, this time tackling, as one might glean from the title, the World Wide Web, something with a decidedly bigger appeal than video-games on the whole, as popular as they may be amongst a certain contingent.
Just as the first film delightfully preserved a certain generation's childhood compadres in amber, not unlike a modern-day Who Framed Roger Rabbit?- see also the "live-action" (sort of) Ready Player One- so does this new film do the same with the internet, gleefully tossing in all the stuff we've become enamored with, often in patented "Easter Egg"-style, which means you sometimes have to keep one eye open at all times to catch it all.
As such, also a la the films I mentioned, this is a film that lends itself nicely to repeated viewings, as evidenced by the bonus feature that points out a mere fragment of the goodies that can be found within the film for the especially sharp-eyed viewer. You want the ever-popular "Hidden Mickeys"? You better believe they're in there. How about a tongue-in-cheek handful of references to the WWW fallen, such as Geocities and Netscape? It's in there, and depicted as part of a literal internet dumping ground, no less.
You want memes? Ralph's got 'em. Cat videos, babies and people/animals busting ass? Check, check and double check. And you better believe there's a "Rick Roll" joke, complete with star John C. Reilly warbling the famed "Never Gonna Give You Up" trolling tune. And, mind you, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
There's also plenty more video-game references- notably an extended Grand Theft Auto sequence, albeit considerably Disney-fied: here, the heroes of the game defend the cars from being stolen, they don't do the stealing themselves- although, to be fair, Vanellope does, in fact, steal a car at one point. The film also smartly casts erstwhile Fast and Furious star Gal Gadot as the leader of the car-protecting pack for good measure, in a winning turn that also finds her adeptly warbling a tune at one point.
Don't worry, musical haters, there's only the one song, and it's played more for laughs than tugging at the heart-strings- although it does a little of that, too, albeit slyly between all the goofy stuff- courtesy of none other than Disney legend Alan Menken. (If you have to ask... see here.)
That said, the song is ably reprised by Julia Michaels over the credits, along with a new song by the rock band Imagine Dragons, "Zero," both of which also get music videos, included on the DVD/Blu-Ray, along with a copious number of extras, as to be expected.
The story-line is better than the original film as well. It revolves around BFFs Ralph (Reilly) and Vanellope (comedian Sarah Silverman, born to be in cartoons, given that voice), who face an unexpected issue when the steering wheel breaks on the latter's arcade game and the arcade owner says it isn't worth fixing, as the game doesn't make enough money to warrant paying for a new one. As such, Vanellope's game is in serious danger of being shuttered for good if she and the gang don't do something about it.
The solution presents itself via a gamer at the arcade, who points out that a new steering wheel can be found on- what else? - the auction site eBay. When the arcade owner balks at paying the cited price, Vanellope and Ralph take matters into their own hands and decide to infiltrate the internet and buy the steering wheel themselves. Of course, this is easier said than done, what with their having no money and being, you know, animated characters in a video-game.
While getting into the internet itself proves to be no big, it's how to get the money that proves to be the real issue, not exactly helped by their complete ignorance of money as a concept. Indeed, it's their own fault that the price they have to pay for the wheel is so high, as they gleefully drive it up by outbidding each other (as opposed to other bidders) until the time expires, lol.
Now faced with a limited amount of time in which to come up with the money, the two turn to the shady world of J.P. Spamley (Bill Hader) - get it? - to earn some quick cash online to pay off their auction win and save the day. Along the way, Vanellope enters the new-fangled, gritty world of Slaughter Race, the aforementioned Twisted Metal/Grand Theft Auto-esque racing game, where she meets tough gal, Shank (Gadot), who is impressed by Vanellope's driving skills and invites her to "join" the game and forgo returning to the squeaky-clean world of her own game, Sugar Rush, which she has grown bored with over time.
Thus forms the crux of the movie: should Vannelope stay or should she go? If she stays, then obviously it will mean the end of her and Ralph's friendship as they know it, but if she goes, will she forever regret what could have been? The end result is a poignant exploration of friendship and what it means to cling too tightly to someone and risk losing them anyway by standing in the way of their growth as a human being. Or a video-game character, in this case, obviously, but you know what I mean.
I gotta say, this one hit me harder than I expected it to, simply because, not too long ago, I had to deal with exactly this sort of thing myself, when I graduated from University and had to part ways with many of my friends, who, up until then, I saw, or at least talked to, almost every day. I mean, I still talk to a lot of them, but, in both my moving away, as well as said friends doing the same, it was a given that we were going to see each other a lot less in the years to come, and that has indeed proven to be the case. Now, we mostly communicate via, you guessed it, the internet.
On the one hand, the internet is a godsend, because it allows us to both stay in touch and reconnect with those we've lost touch with over the years, something that was a lot tougher to do before the net was a thing. So, I suppose my generation and those younger have it a lot easier in that regard than past generations, so there's that, but I'm sure everyone watching this, even if they only have a rudimentary understanding of video-games and memes and the like, can relate to this core idea at the heart of the movie, which is where it succeeds more than its predecessor.
In addition, living up to the "breaks the internet" part of the title, the movie is filled with references that are sure to win over even the wariest of fans of this sort of thing, by which I mean, Disney flicks. To be sure, if you are a Disney fan, boy, are you in for a treat. As you've probably heard by now, the much-hyped "Princess" scenes are alone worth the price of admission, featuring a gleeful self-awareness that older Disney films don't have one iota of in retrospect.
In one delightful fast-paced exchange, after peppering Vanellope with a barrage of questions designed to test whether or not she qualifies as a Princess herself, Rapunzel ends with the following question: "Do people assume your problems got solved because a big strong man showed up?" Taken aback, Vanellope, answers with a resounding: "Yes! What is up with that?" "She IS a Princess!" shout the girls in unison, delighted. If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does. It's official, everyone- Ralph Breaks the Internet is the first truly "woke" Disney movie.
The fun hardly stops there- the attention to detail in these scenes alone is head-spinning. Check out the Princesses' various T-shirts, for instance: Anna wears one that says "Finish Each Other's" and a picture of a sandwich- if you don't get it, talk to anyone who's seen Frozen- while The Little Mermaid's Ariel has one that declares "#shiny" and so on.
In addition, the majority of Princesses' voices are done by their original voice talent, save the older ones that are no longer with us and Mary Costa, who couldn't quite reach the voice quality of her Aurora character from back then- she's nearly 90 and the movie Sleeping Beauty was released back in 1959, so pretty understandable- but kudos for going the extra mile to get as many of the original actresses in there as possible.
As you might have heard, the clip of that scene, much less the "selfie" posted online, did indeed come close to "breaking" the internet, and it's no wonder- I'm a guy and I was charmed by it within an inch of my life. There's plenty more where that comes from, including lots of more guy-friendly stuff- lest we forget, Disney also owns the rights to Marvel (look sharp for a Stan Lee "cameo"- and an adorable "Groot" press conference is a highlight), Star Wars (lots of character cameos, as well as a cameo by the Millennium Falcon) and The Muppets.
Hell, if anything, all this sort of thing could have been the movie and I doubt I'd have complained that much, but the fact that they managed to graft a touching central story-line into all this on top of everything else is a testament to the frankly astonishing level of detail that makes Disney a cut above the rest. I mean, seriously, it's all pretty awe-inspiring, and a hell of a lot of fun, and the sort of thing that, unlike, say, something like Frozen or Moana, parents won't mind as much watching over and over without it getting on their last nerve. And did I mention there's only one song?
So, yeah, I'm not gonna lie. I really loved this one, much more that I thought I would, and I liked the original film just fine. But this one not only hit me right in the feels, the attention to detail really floored me in a big way, even more than I expected.
Kudos to Phil Johnston and Pamela Ribon for the former and the seemingly endless number of animators (the credits run a whopping thirteen minutes!) and their inventiveness for all the latter stuff. And I didn't even mention the excellent Kaiju-inspired monster towards the end of the film, which must have taken some doing (you'll see- but, in a word: wow), or the fact that the film features more characters- 434 in all- than in any previous Disney animated movie.
And trust me, there are plenty more in-jokes and pop culture references than I mentioned, from famed YouTuber cameos (the "crushed" avatar girl whose internet crashes is Colleen "Miranda Sings" Ballinger, for instance), to lots of hall-of-fame level internet memes (the screaming goat, "Can I haz?...", the hot pepper eating challenge, etc.) that are blink-and-you'll-miss-them lurking in the background. In short, this is definitely a film that both warrants and rewards multiple viewings, and by now, you all know how I feel about such films- they're a cut above the rest, in my book.
So, by all means, check this one out, even if Disney flicks aren't usually your cup of pixels. This one is savvier and cleverer than most, and is absolutely hipper than your average Disney movie, animated or otherwise. I can't recommend it enough, in fact. 😎
Writer's Note: I would be remiss if I didn't mention the passing of the late, great Larry Cohen, of whose stuff I was a big fan. (See what I did there?) The writer/director/producer was arguably best-known for the It's Alive series, which spawned three films and a remake. (Oops, I did it again.)
However, I have a soft spot for his lesser-known cult classics, which include the likes of the Blaxploitation favorites Hell Up In Harlem and Black Caesar, God Told Me To, Q (aka The Winged Serpent), Special Effects, The Stuff, Wicked Stepmother, the Maniac Cop series, Uncle Sam, Cellular, Phone Booth, Captivity and Messages Deleted.
I plan to cover one of those in more detail soon, but until then, you can read more about Cohen in my look back at his fun horror flick, The Stuff, which continues to be influential to this day- witness a recent Geico commercial, in which a group of men discover a cache of ice cream underground and go hog wild in celebration, which is directly inspired by the opening of that film. Check out my deep dive review on The Stuff here, and stay tuned for more soon!
The Nun is the latest entry in the ongoing Conjuring-verse, which, in addition to the two initial films in the series, also includes two Annabelle flicks (with another on the way), the forthcoming The Crooked Man and The Curse of La Llorona, the latter of which comes out April 19th, after premiering to mixed reviews at the SXSW film festival in Austin, Texas, recently.
The Nun continued the series' hot streak, grossing over $365 million at the box office on a mere $22 million budget, once again proving that horror is one of the best return investments in Hollywood. Despite that, many critics considered the film to be a step down for the typical quality of the franchise to date.
The story revolves around Valak (Bonnie Aarons), the demon nun first introduced in The Conjuring 2, and is the earliest film chronologically within the Conjuring-verse, although Annabelle: Creation features a flashback sequence set in 1943, before the events of this film, which takes place in 1952. However, the bulk of that film takes place in 1955, and The Nun itself features a flashback that goes back even further than 1952, so technically this one is the earliest on the whole.
The film begins with the mysterious suicide of a nun living in an isolated castle monastery in Romania, which is reported by a local deliveryman, Maurice, aka "Frenchie" (Jonas Bloquet, Elle), who discovers the body hanging from a window in front of the entrance to the monastery. The Vatican itself sends Father Burke (Demián Bichir, The Hateful Eight), a priest known for dealing with strange phenomena, to check it out.
Accompanying him is Sister Irene, a nun still in training that hasn't yet taken her vows, but who is chosen due to her knowledge of the "territory," which turns out not to be the area itself, but the kind of spiritual phenomena Burke is also known for.
In a neat bit of casting, Irene is played by Taissa Farmiga, of American Horror Story fame, who just so happens to be the younger sister of Vera, aka Lorraine Warren from the prior Conjuring films. Vera Farmiga also has a brief appearance here, in a flashback to the first film that ties The Nun directly to that one. (Yes, I'm aware the nun character wasn't introduced until the second film- you'll see.)
The two head to Romania, where they meet up with Frenchie, a wily sort with a reputation as a ladies' man. He takes them to the monastery and points them in the direction of the body, then agrees to come back in a few days to retrieve them, after they have completed their investigation. This, of course, leaves them essentially stranded until then, with no real means of escape should anything go awry, which, naturally, it does, or we wouldn't have a movie.
They set about interviewing the remaining nuns, beginning with the Abbess (Gabrielle Downey, Stonehearst Asylum), who informs the pair that rest of the interviews will have to wait until the next day, as the nuns have taken a vow of silence from dusk till dawn.
Things almost immediately go haywire after dark, with Frenchie attacked on his way home around dusk, and both Father Burke and Sister Irene messed with by evil spirits- almost fatally in most cases, with only Irene remaining relatively unscathed, though she does have some spooky encounters, certainly.
After a day spent investigating what really happened with the nun who committed suicide, the two both find themselves in mortal danger as another night looms. Needless to say, the evil Valak figures prominently in the scares to come, and remains an admittedly frightening visage. I won't spoil any more, except to say that, as I mentioned, the film does eventually cleverly tie directly into the first Conjuring film, though not necessarily in the way you think. (There is no "bonus scene" after the main end credits, FYI.)
The Nun isn't as bad as some critics will have you believe, but it is a step down from the first two films in the series, for sure. I'd say it was better than the first Annabelle film, and on par with Annabelle: Creation, in terms of overall quality. The cast is great across the board, also including Stephanie Sigman (Spectre), briefly reprising her role as Sister Charlotte from Annabelle: Creation; Charlotte Hope (Game of Thrones) as Sister Victoria; and Ingrid Bisu (Toni Erdmann) as Sister Oana.
Farmiga and Bichir make for likable, engaging main characters, and Bloquet provides some much-needed levity to the proceedings, which are mostly humorless. Mind you, not that all horror movies have to have some humor in them, but it does help to temper the films somewhat, giving the audience a release in between all the scares.
The atmosphere is super-creepy, with the film having been made mostly on location in Romania, with some sequences shot at Corvin Castle, one of the largest in Europe, located in no less than Transylvania, home of the OG Dracula, Vlad the Impaler. Indeed, the castle was where Vlad was once held prisoner, though it was not the inspiration for Dracula's castle, per se, which was a fictional creation by author Bram Stoker. Still, pretty cool location.
That said, the film relies a bit too much on the ever-popular jump scare, which I've always seen as a bit of a cheat. Anyone can get someone to jump with a well-placed musical sting and someone or something springing out at a character. Granted, I did jump once, but I can't say that I was especially freaked out by the film in general- though, I do admit I can be a tough scare, having grown up on a steady diet of horror movies over the years since I was just a kid. Once you know the general formula, it's hard to be caught off-guard by something as cheap as a jump scare.
Of course, that's the thing about the first two films in the franchise, the ones directed by James Wan. Although he wasn't above the occasional scare of that sort, Wan was more interested in building a general sense of dread and ratcheting up the suspense over time so that things reached a fever pitch by the end. Though the second Annabelle was certainly a step in the right direction, the first Annabelle and this film rely too heavily on the whole jump scare thing, unfortunately, instead of building up quality tension.
It's too bad, as the locations here do half the work for director Corin Hardy (The Hallow), and there's some nice cinematography by Maxime Alexandre, who also shot Annabelle: Creation, as well as The Other Side of the Door, Mirrors, P2, High Tension and the remakes of Maniac, The Crazies and The Hills Have Eyes. But by favoring cheap scares over more quality ones, Hardy does the series a disservice in the process.
In fact, to that end, reportedly Wan had to oversee extensive re-shoots for the film, causing the film's release date to be changed from July to late September. Granted, it's nothing new for a film to have some re-shooting these days, but it can also be a bad sign that the results aren't up to snuff as well, which seems to be the case here.
It's not a bad movie, per se, it's just nothing that most horror fans haven't seen before, which is too bad, as there is certainly an opportunity for a quality Gothic horror-type film to be made here, of which there are relatively few of these days. I'd love to see a new Hammer-style horror flick that was actually scary, but this isn't it.
The fact that it was a huge hit, and that Wan has some ideas for the sequel is a good sign, though, and he might be able to be more involved with it, now that Aquaman is firmly in the can. Maybe, like Annabelle before it, the sequel will actually be the rare one that surpasses its predecessor. One can only hope, as there's a good, solid story to be told with the Valak character.
For now, there's The Nun, which is passable, but nothing spectacular, unfortunately. But hey, at least we got some cool posters out of it! 😈
I'm a longtime fan of Natalie Dormer, who hit the ground acting her butt off, both on stage (her theatrical debut was in a Shakespeare play, but of course) and in a lot of beloved small screen costume dramas, notably The Tudors and Game of Thrones, both of which she received various award nominations for- though, alas, she didn't win. Her characters also didn't fare too well, either. 😭
One of the things I love about her, beyond her obvious exotic and beautiful appearance, is the way she radiates intelligence, both on and off screen. This quality is certainly reflected in the types of parts she has chosen over the years, from the punk-rock-looking bad-ass Cressida in The Hunger Games series, to the gender-flipped Sherlock Holmes foe Moriarty on TV's Elementary, to the reined-in, secretive headmistress in the remake of Picnic at Hanging Rock.
As such, it was probably only a matter of time before she took an even more proactive approach to her career, which leads me to this film, In Darkness, which she co-produced, co-wrote and stars in. I suspect she'll likely start directing soon as well, if she finds the right project. Count on her almost certainly getting her feet wet in that regard soon, probably by directing some television- an episode of the upcoming Penny Dreadful spin-off, City of Angels, perhaps?
In Darkness revolves around a blind woman, Sofia (Dormer), that lives alone in a spacious apartment and bides her time playing piano for thriller film soundtracks when she overhears her neighbor, Veronique (sexy model Emily Ratajkowski, of Gone Girl fame), getting into a heated argument with someone and seemingly committing suicide. Or was she pushed?
When it turns out that Veronique was the daughter of Zoran Radic (Jan Bijvoet, Peaky Blinders), a super-wealthy Serbian businessman recently accused of war crimes, the cops suspect there's more than meets the eye to her death. Unfortunately, their only witness- as far as they know, at least- is a blind woman, who isn't being as cooperative as lead detective, Oscar Mills (Neil Maskell, Kill List) would like. But why?
In Darkness is one of those films in which almost everyone has a hidden agenda and lots of secrets, all of which inevitably come out as the story proceeds. The film also features Ed Skrein (Game of Thrones, Deadpool) as the mysterious man who was in Veronique's apartment at the time of her death and Joely Richardson (The Tudors, Nip/Tuck) as Alex, a shady businesswoman in cahoots with Radic somehow- or is she secretly working against him?
There are an awful lot of moving parts in the film, most of which fit together reasonably well- although, in the end, the story perhaps has one twist too many, something that seems to be par for the course these days, post-M. Night Shyamalan. The one in the final moments of the film is particularly ludicrous, and is at odds with everything else we've seen up to that point, making one less inclined to re-watch the film for clues we might have missed than for any sensible viewer to cry foul.
Be that as it may, if you can get past that silly final twist, this is a solid enough thriller which reminded me a little of Bava's A Blade in the Dark or even, to a lesser extent, Argento's classic Deep Red, which also feature pianists caught up in murderous intrigue; or the underrated slasher Eyes of a Stranger, which also features a blind heroine being terrorized. That's a telling comparison, as the film is obviously aiming for Hitchcockian territory, or, at the very least, Wait Until Dark.
That it ends up more in B-movie land kind of says it all, in spite of the quality of the performances and the decent production values on display, to say nothing of the gorgeous locales. (The film was shot on location in England, and features many telltale locations viewers familiar with London will readily recognize.)
Indeed, the Argento comparison is somewhat apt, as the film was co-written and directed by Dormer's then-fiancé Anthony Byrne, best-known for directing various episodes of Peaky Blinders (hence the presence of Bijvoet) and Ripper Street. As you might have heard, the writing of the film was pretty tumultuous for the couple, who ultimately broke up after doing promotion for the film.
This is perhaps because the film features a fair amount of nudity and a steamy sex scene involving Dormer, which must have been at least a little weird for the director, though perhaps not as eyebrow-raising as Argento's many such scenes involving daughter Asia in similar states. (Dormer does a decent job of defending said scenes and how important and relevant they are to the story at hand here.)
Mind you, not that I'm complaining, as Dormer is nothing if not easy on the eyes, and she's certainly done her fair share of such things in the past, both in The Tudors and GOT, which, lest we forget, are both critically-acclaimed, highly successful shows.
It seems to me that society on the whole has gotten a little carried away with all the PC BS lately. I know plenty of women who adore Dormer, and I never once heard any of them complain about her getting naked in one of her projects before. I think everyone complaining about such things needs to take a deep breath and calm the fuck down, personally.
I mean, seriously? Aren't there a LOT more things to be concerned about right about now? Maybe direct some of that criticism towards something that actually matters, instead of giving actresses like Dormer shit, who actually seems to have a working brain and knows how to use it. If anything, we could use a lot more like her, so yeah, STFU, haters. 😝
In Darkness isn't perfect by any means, but it's a solid enough thriller with some cool twists- and admittedly, one really goofy one- that's worth at least one watch, especially if you're a Dormer fan. The cast is uniformly great across the board, the plot is just intriguing enough to keep you interested and guessing about how everything will end up playing out and the film is beautifully shot (by Si Bell, another Peaky Blinders/Ripper Street alum) and well-directed by Byrne.
In short, there's a lot to recommend here, and it's hardly just the nudity, whether you determine it to be gratuitous or not. In fact, if the film had stopped short of that final twist, I probably would be recommending it even more. Hell, once you're seen it once, you could always stop short of that scene the next time you watch it and have a really quality movie experience the second time around.
Either way, I say check it out, at least once. Dormer, on the other hand, is well-worth checking out in general. 😍
Writer's Note:
With all the 2018 lists behind us, I plan to get back to my normal format soon, but there were still a few 2018 movie stragglers that I didn't address in the previous few articles that I wanted to do quick reviews of, beginning with this one, which I watched over the weekend.
After the next week or so, I'll go back to reviewing older cult and horror movies, so if that's more your jam, hang in there. Nothing has changed much, schedule-wise, so my reviews will remain on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with the occasional weekend article, as I have time. If anything changes there again, I'll let you know.
And if you're new here, or only come for the horror and cult stuff, be sure and check out some of the other articles I've written, which aren't just limited to those two genres. I try to cover a little bit of everything, including the occasional music review (click on the respective links for my fave music of 2018: Part One/Part Two/Part Three) or general article about a personality (or personalities) I like, such as, say Vampiria.
As always, thanks for reading, and be sure and comment on social media or even here! 😉
If you're reading this and you're like: Wait? Didn't he review this one already? Well, you're not entirely wrong- I did indeed review a movie with practically the same plot (to say nothing of a similar title) as this one earlier this year. As such, I won't go into the same spiel I did about how much I like amusement parks/dark rides/scare houses, etc. If you're so inclined, you can read about all that in my review of the movie Hell Fest.
Anyway, the plot for this one is as follows: a group of "teens" (all of which are pushing thirty IRL- though, to be fair, the two main leads look a lot younger than they are) attend a horror-themed amusement park that turns deadly when psychos turn on the guests and start killing them for real, instead of just scaring them.
There are two main differences between this film and Hell Fest: here, the horror is more played for laughs than scares, so it's actually more of a horror-comedy; and, you might have noticed I said psychos, as in more than one of them. Unlike Hell Fest, which sports only one whack-job doing the killing, this one features a host of them, which leads me to what was easily my favorite scene in the movie.
For a long time, I've always wanted to see a scene in which the killer (or killers, as the case may be) goes nuts in a crowd or a room filled with a bunch of people. Freddy Vs. Jason came close, but didn't really deliver the goods as much as I would have liked, save for what may be the best line of dialogue in the entire series ("Dude! That goalie was pissed about something!").
Kevin Williamson came closer to what I'm talking about, in Scream 3, then in his underrated TV series, The Following, but he pulled his punches in the former by forgoing killing anyone significant. He did better in the latter, killing quite a few people in one fell swoop, but once again, that was a TV show.
Early on in Blood Fest, however, the filmmakers completely nail what I was talking about, when (mild spoiler) the host of the event, Anthony Walsh (Owen Egerton, essentially playing himself gone crazy, as he's the one who actually wrote and directed the movie IRL) announces that Blood Fest is the real deal, and that everyone there will be fighting for their lives for real. Cue a host of masked psychos, who proceed to go about the business of killing everyone in sight!
So, yeah, as you might imagine, that was pretty awesome and a great way to kick off the proceedings, with a whole lot of bloodshed in a short amount of time. Of course, it would be near impossible to keep up that level of mayhem, and Egerton doesn't even come close to fulfilling the promise of that early scene, but that's not to say he doesn't deliver the goods in other ways.
For one thing, the film is really a good-natured homage to horror movies in general, with lots of in-jokes for hardcore horror fans. It's basically Hell Fest crossed with The Cabin in the Woods, just a bit more on the nose. For instance, where TCITW was broader and more general in its approach, Blood Fest is more the kind of film that will outright name-check Freddy, Michael, Jason and Leatherface within the film itself, Scream-style.
As such, seeing as this kind of thing has been done before, your mileage may vary, according to how many of these sorts of horror-comedies you've seen over the years. Let's face it: horror-comedies are one of the trickier sub-genres to master. Too much meta-humor and you risk annoying horror fans more than entertaining them. I still hear people grousing on social media about how the Scream movies all but ruined the horror genre- or at least, the slasher sub-genre- for instance.
On the other hand, if you go too broad with it, you risk alienating the audiences who "don't get it," which is probably why TCITW bombed at the box office. On the plus side, it eventually found its intended audience on home video, and now online streaming, basically becoming a new cult classic in the process. Sometimes it takes a hot minute for the rest of the world to catch up to niche movies, you know? It happens.
I suspect Blood Fest will do just fine on those formats, to say nothing of pay-cable, which is where I saw it- specifically on The Movie Channel, which had a free preview this past weekend. Expect it to have a good long run there, as it's perfect late-night movie fodder for those of us channel-surfing in the wee hours of the morning.
As far as the similarities to Hell Fest go, I'm sure it's just a coincidence, as both the films were likely shot at roughly the same time and released the same year, 2018. It wouldn't be the first time Hollywood had the same idea at the same time and competing films were put into production as a result. There have been dueling volcano-themed movies, White House attack flicks (we could use one of those right about now, lol), and, most recently, several horror films- at least three, by my count- about Escape Rooms gone horribly awry.
So, yeah, there's no doubt in my mind that both the creators of Hell Fest and Blood Fest were either attending or reading about the recent uptick in horror theme parks when they both had their eureka moment and were like: what if someone (or in the case of this film, a group of someones) got a little too into their job and hauled off and started killing people?
After all, it's the perfect cover. You're literally there to scare people, and it's typical to both hear people screaming bloody murder and see someone ostensibly getting "attacked" by someone working there, only to find out it was all staged, or the attacker had a fake knife or what have you. But what if it wasn't?
So, yeah, I don't fault Blood Fest for treading the same ground as Hell Fest- it happens. I also don't fault it, despite my tweaking earlier, for having older actors playing younger people, as Hollywood has been doing that since practically the beginning of film.
Indeed, I'll give credit where it's due for actually making the main characters mostly likable, though some of them do push it a bit, which seems more like a writing issue than an actor one in this case- but maybe not. Looking at you, leading man Robbie Kay- you threaded the needle pretty fine there, my friend, but ultimately won me over in the end.
Ditto token hottie Barbara Dunkelman, who I gather is a Rooster Teeth regular (that being the production company behind this film, an Austin-based former internet-centric producer of shorts and web-series and the like- read more here).
At first, her character was pretty annoying, but as the film went on, she grew on me, and I realized it might have actually been her co-star, Nicholas Rutherford, who played an intentionally annoying douche-bag, that was the real problem.
Naturally, he didn't last long, because Egerton rightfully realized a little of him went a long way. He's one of those characters you can't wait to see get it, in other words. Also, his name was Lenjamin, which isn't a real name, so yeah, he totally had it coming.
Anyway, Dunkelman's character, Ashley, actually ended up being one of my favorite characters in the film, which just goes to show you sometimes have to be patient with these things. (Perfect example: the heroine of the Happy Death Day series.)
However, my actual favorites were undeniably Krill (Jacob Batalon), essentially playing a variation of his Spider-Man: Homecoming character, but with much more screen time, and thus, more hilarity; and tomboy hottie Sam (Seychelle Gabriel, late of TV's Falling Skies), who has a great, multi-layered role that requires a lot of her. Thankfully, Gabriel is up to the challenge, delivering both laughs and scares in equal measure. Also, yeah, she's VERY easy on the eyes, even covered in slime and the like, which doesn't hurt. 😍
Leading man Robbie Kay, despite my qualms about him early on, when he was basically Randy, from the Scream movies, if he was the leading man- turns out a little of that goes a long way, too- actually does grow on you as the film progresses and he has to step it up a bit or get himself killed in the process of making relentless in-jokes.
His character does have a solid back-story that involves the adverse effect horror films had on him because of an event that happened to him as a kid. Typically, it's the horror films that get blamed for causing IRL violence- here, it's the exact opposite. It's actually Kay's life-line after tragedy strikes him as a kid, the one thing that helps him get through a tough time. By facing down his fears in movies, he's able to do the same in his life, which is a neat little twist.
Another twist is to be found in the actual mastermind of the whole theme park massacre idea, which actually isn't the work of host Anthony Walsh, but rather, the park financier, who has his own reasons for doing what he does, and just goes to show what can happen if someone who hates these sorts of movies gets a little carried away with putting a stop to them.
The twist is pretty obvious, which makes it a good thing that writer/director Egerton doesn't drag it out more than he does. Egerton has a knack for knowing just when to say when, to pull back when a lot of writers or directors might milk things for all they're worth, which is a good quality to have in a horror director. He knows you've seen those movies, too, so he doesn't belabor the point too much, for the most part.
That said, I suppose the film's worst debit is that, well, if you're watching this, you've likely seen these movies, too, which makes the whole thing a bit redundant. While the film does stop short of being outright parody, a la the Scary Movie series, it does make a lot of jokes that you can see coming a mile away, if you're even slightly familiar with horror in a general sense.
As such, Blood Fest does have an air of familiarity about it that makes it tough to recommend as anything but a pleasant enough diversion for horror fans who like a little comedy in the mix. Of course, you could say the same thing about Hell Fest, so there's that. Basically, this is the funnier, sillier version of that film, in a nutshell, so if that sounds fun to you, it probably will be.
There's also a completely random Zachary Levi cameo, for you Chuck fans out there. Hell, even if you aren't- or have no idea who that is (he's also playing Shazam in an upcoming film, and was Flynn Rider in Disney's Tangled, which, for some reason, gets a lot of love here, too)- he doesn't last long, so there's that. I'm not sure why he's involved, as it's not like he's some huge horror icon or what have you- maybe he's a friend of Egerton's. Or maybe Bruce Campbell was busy. Who knows?
All in all, it's a perfectly watchable film, just nothing spectacular. You could do a lot worse, I suppose. Actually, as a hardcore horror fan that apparently will watch almost anything, I can say you could do WAY worse, trust me. This is simply a fun film that achieves what it sets out to: to entertain. I can live with that.
