TedStixon

It's hard to believe that it's been nearly a decade since the release of Ghostbusters (2016)... a film that shockingly became one of the most destructively divisive movies of all time. Reactions to the film were all all over the place, and it turned into a strange cultural war of words.

I still don't get it. And if anything, the fact that a Ghostbusters movie caused such a nonsensical controversy shows just how privileged a world we live in, and how backwards people's priorities are. Especially because, at the end of the day...

...it's possibly the single most "it was alright" movie ever made. Neither bad enough to justify the ludicrous hatred it conjured from a large portion of the audience, nor good enough to warrant the undying support of those who made defending it a massive part of their personality.

The film's ultimate sin is that it falls prey to one of the more annoying trends in modern comedy filmmaking - the "Line-O-Rama," where the director tells the cast to constantly improvise tons of lines to pepper in throughout the dialogue. The problem with this style of humor is that it's very particular, and just doesn't quite work with a property like Ghostbusters.

It's very easy to tell that the best jokes of the film were obviously scripted, whereas most of those "Line-O-Rama" gags fall flat because the actors don't really have anything to work off. Director/Co-Writer Paul Feig was far too reliant on them to generate humor when he should have focused on writing a script that was funnier and letting the actors simply "punch it up" with occasional improv.

That being said, despite the gags often falling flat, the beating heart of the film, and indeed the thing that often saves it during its weaker moments, is the wonderful cast and some of the comedic set-pieces. I was actually surprised that despite being the most irritating parts of the trailer, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones were probably the funniest characters. Especially Jones, who felt quite "real" in her role. Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy are also quite fun and do most of the heavy lifting plot-wise.

And there are some very decent set-pieces in terms of comedy. A scene where McCarthy Abby tries to talk someone out of killing themselves... but not being able to think of any reasons to live is genuinely one of the funniest gags of the past decade. And an action sequence near the end where the gang takes on Ghosts in Time Square while quipping is extremely well-executed.

At the end of the day, this might be the weakest Ghostbusters film... but it's still thoroughly watchable. It's nonsensical how much of a firestorm it caused when it's neither particularly great, nor bad.

It's a 3 out of 5.

TedStixon

I don't know how they did it, and I am genuinely shook... but I am also thrilled to say that "Saw X" is not only the best entry in the series since the original... I believe it actually eclipses the original in many ways.

Set nebulously in time between the events of the original two films, John Kramer (Tobin Bell) has been acting as the Jigsaw Killer for some time now while trying anything he can to prevent his imminent death from cancer. When he hears news of a supposed "miracle cure" from an old friend, he sets off to Mexico City seeking treatment. However, his dreams are shattered when he realises that it was all a scam conducted by criminals who prey on desperate people, and that he wasn't really cured. And so, with the help of his apprentice Amanda (Shawnee Smith), he creates a new life-or-death game to test the con-artists and show them the error of their ways...

Directed by series veteran Kevin Greutert from a script by Josh Stolberg and Pete Goldfinger, "Saw X" largely succeeds thanks to it both honoring and also subverting franchise expectations. The first half of the film is almost something else entirely when compared to previous entries, focusing much more on the pathos of John Kramer as a character, and treating him like a real human being. You might even forget you're watching a "Saw" film at times, and Bell excels with a beautiful, nuanced performance.

But then, as the second half begins, the movie slowly transitions and turns into what almost feels like a "greatest hits" of "Saw" in terms of constant twists, turns, traps and fan-service. And it was perfectly handled. The traps are brutal, wince-inducing and disgusting. The twists and turns come with enough frequency to keep you on your toes. And with tons of lovely references and many outstanding scenes showing the connection between John and Amanda, it appeals to longtime fans who want to see more of these characters.

I absolutely adored this film as a longtime "Saw" fan, and I can't wait to see it again. For my money, this might actually be the best "Saw" yet! 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to 5 for MovieMistakes.)

TedStixon

It's a genuine shame that despite maintaining a dedicated cult following, the "Child's Play" franchise remains a relatively low-key slasher franchise that doesn't command nearly the same respect as its peers. With its witty writing, strong ongoing story and incredibly likeable recurring characters, it's one of the strongest horror series out there. And this original film starts it out on a solid if not slightly uneven note. 1988's "Child's Play" benefits from a wonderfully eerie sense of dread and intrigue, wickedly entertaining kills and a top-notch cast. And it's also the film to introduce the world to Chucky the killer doll, which earns it extra brownie points.

As a slasher movie, this is definitely a great effort, and it easily earns a very good 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

Having been born in the late 80's, I pretty much grew up with Mario. So I was definitely looking forward to this film, albeit cautiously because I'm not the biggest Illumination fan. But you know what? They nailed it! "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" is easily one of the best video-game movies ever made and near-perfectly captures the fun, the visuals and the spirit of the games. While it does have a few hiccups along the way, and while I do have some nit-picks regarding the execution (if anything, it tries a little too hard to emulate the games at times), I sat in the theater with the biggest, goofiest grin on my face from start-to-finish, and I almost immediately pre-ordered the 4K release when I got home.

Oh, and the voices are totally fine. Trust me, if you doubted Chris Pratt, you have nothing to worry about. He's very good as our mustached hero.

I'll expand this review in the future once I've seen it a few more times, but as of now, I'd comfortably give it a 4.5 out of 5. If you're a fan of Mario, I can almost guarantee you'll love this movie. (Rounding up to 5 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

(Note: This is a fresh out of the theater review, and I may change the wording or my score after I get a chance to see it again or ruminate on it a bit more.)

I've been following this franchise ever since I saw the broadcast cable premiere for the original film way back when in the 90's when I was a little kid, and I was a huge fan of the original trilogy throughout my adolescence. And while the belated "Scream 4" didn't exactly set the world on fire, it was a nice little addition to one of the most popular and iconic horror franchises of all time, and was a nostalgic treat for fans. But sadly, the unfortunate passing of Wes Craven just a few years later seemed to signal the end of the series.

So imagine my surprise last year when a new film was not only released but also ended up being one of the best sequels in the franchise! Yes, "Scream (2022) " was a wonderful installment that not only honored what came before, but also expanded the universe and mythology in an interesting way. So I was very excited when it was announced that the same creative team was working on a sixth film, set to release only one year later.

And now that it's out, I can confidently say that it's a great time to be a "Scream" fan! While it maybe isn't quite as refreshing as last-year's requel-relaunch, "Scream VI" is nonetheless a wonderfully made and fiendishly entertaining new chapter that hits all the right notes. Ghostface is back, baby!

One year after escaping the latest Woodsboro Massacre, Sam and Tara Carpenter are living in New York City with their friends Chad and Mindy, trying to put the past behind them. However, they find themselves pulled into a new string of "Ghostface" murders that are all tied together with a fascinating calling card... at each crime scene, the killer is leaving behind one of the masks from the previous killers! Why is the killer leaving these pieces of real-life evidence behind and what is their significance? How are these new murders tied to Sam and Tara? And who is next on the chopping block? These questions will bring about dark and twisted revelations that threaten to change everything

Possibly the most visceral and intense entry in the franchise, "Scream VI" actually managed to genuinely unnerve me on quite a few occasions. Returning directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett revel in piling on the jumps and atmosphere, and they definitely step up their work in comparison to the previous film, with some really interesting sequences and shot choices. But that's not to say the film is missing the trademark wit that has defined the series so far. This film absolutely has all the laughs and meta commentary you'd expect, making it feel like a wonderfully organic expansion of what came before. The theme here is "franchises", with the new rule in town being that there is essentially no rules, which sets a nice anarchic tone that the film has a lot of fun with. (I can't imagine what "Scream VII" will be about... all I think is left is prequels and cinematic universes at this point.)

And as always, the cast is absolutely wonderful. Returning cast members including Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega, Mason Gooding and Jasmin Savoy Brown all being excellent. Especially Barrera, who gets a lot more nuance to work with. Courteney Cox is a joy as always as the smarmy Gale Weathers, and newcomers including Dermot Mulroney, Liana Liberato, Jack Champion and Samara Weaving are great additions to the ensemble. But I have to say, the return of Hayden Panettiere is the biggest draw for me. I loved Kirby when she was introduced twelve years ago in "Scream 4," and it's a joy having her back!

And to discuss the elephant in the room, yes, the film does explain why Sidney Prescott is absent from the proceedings. And as a longtime fan, I was 100% on board with the reasoning given. It made sense in-universe while also leaving the door open for a possible return in the future.

I am so thrilled that this franchise has began to flourish again. I have loved it for over 25 years now, and if they can continue to deliver films of this quality I say bring on "Scream VII, " "Scream VIII, " "Scream IX" and more!

"Scream VI" gets a very good 4.5 out of 5.
(Rounding up to 5 for MovieMistakes.com).

TedStixon

I saw this film just a few hours ago, and I still almost don't even know exactly what to say. Darren Aronofsky's "The Whale," based on the play by Samuel D. Hunter, was an utterly unique experience for me. It was both delightful and grotesque. Inspiring and devastating. It was a thing of terrible, terrible beauty. And I was enthralled from start to finish.

I will update this review when I have had a chance to see it again. But it is not only a perfect five out of five for me... it may very well be my favorite film of 2022. And I say that as a man who has struggled with my weight my whole life and was apprehensive about this film at times.

TedStixon

"The Craft: Legacy" is a sadly and unfairly maligned sequel that was dismissed far too quickly because the original is such a cult classic. And it's a real shame because for what it is, "Legacy" is a solid little follow-up. Likeable leads and some fun twists and turns anchor this film even if its pacing can be a little too haphazard at times. I also like that it took a slightly different approach and didn't just regurgitate the same story all over again... there are references and fan-service, but the plot is very much its own. And there's even some really interesting ways in which it ties into the original film that could have set up further sequels.

Sadly, the COVID pandemic doing away with its theatrical release, and the venomous pre-release hatred have likely put any hope for a third film on ice for the time being. I really wish people would stop judging a film before its even out. Nobody was willing to give this movie a fair chance, and it's kinda heartbreaking because it's clear a lot of love went into its production and that a third movie was in the cards originally. Oh well... maybe one day.

I'd give "The Craft: Legacy" a very solid 3.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to a 4 out of 5).

TedStixon

Perhaps the most influential anime film of all time, "Akira" stands the test of time thanks to a mature storyline that strikes a near-perfect balance between what it explains and what it leaves to interpretation, incredibly likeable characters and some of the most beautiful and eye-popping 2D animation ever crafted. Even over thirty years after its release, it set a benchmark for anime that few other films or series have crossed.

In an alternate-history Japan that was ravaged by a third world war in the late 20th century, society is plagued by corruption and gang-violence, as crooked cops and politicians rule the day while street thugs and protestors command the night. And the world is about to change when a troubled and unstable young man, Tetsuo Shima, inadvertently awakens his latent psychic powers in an accident one night after a turf-war between two rival motorcycle gangs.

Writer/director Katsuhiro Otomo's film, based on his own manga, is a masterpiece of adult animation. Managing to be both grounded and gritty, while also being whimsical and fantastical, the film is unlike anything else of its era, and still stands tall as a unique and groundbreaking experience. It never feels dated and is still immensely enjoyable. And it's one of those movies that I'd give a hearty recommendation even if you're not an anime fan. I know people have pre-conceived notions of what anime is... but the truth is, like any format, it's a wide-cast net that cannot be boiled down into simple tropes.

And "Akira" is a great example of the medium at its best. It's thrilling. It's heart pounding. And it's unlike anything you have seen before. "Akira" is an easy 5 out of 5.

TedStixon

"Barbarian" is the latest in a trend I've been noticing in horror lately... smartly written movies that mix wild, oft-unrealistic high-concept stories with a strong sense of humor and a touch of social commentary. Sure, these sorts of movies have existed in the past. Heck, classics like "Dawn of the Dead" are perfect examples of it. But thanks to directors like Jordan Peele, this particular brand of horror has become much more in vogue as of late, and that has made me very happy as a horror fan. As much as I love jump-scares and buckets of blood... intelligent horror is something that too many people have disregarded for too long.

Georgina Campbell and Bill Skarsgård star as Tess and Keith, two young professionals who realise they have both accidentally double-booked the same rental home. Trying to figure out what to do, they decide to both stay the night despite being strangers... unaware that dark revelations are about to unfold. At the same time, a popular sitcom actor (Justin Long) is forced to flee Los Angeles after being accused of sexual misconduct on-set. He decides to begin visiting and selling off his rental homes to cover his mounting legal costs... unaware he is on a collision course with the same dark forces that threaten Tess and Keith.

"Barbarian" is a film that truly hinges on surprises and twists, so I won't spoil anything more. But what I will say is that this is film is able to juggle multiple tones and genres to a truly remarkable degree. It's been a long time since I've seen a film this genuinely scary - I'd go so far as to call the first 30 minutes one of the scariest sequences I've ever seen in a film, in fact - that was also able to get dozens of genuine laughs out of me. The movie effortlessly shifts from pure terror to dark comedy to other wildly different genres in a few key moments... yet always feels concise and consistent. Writer/director Zach Creggor, in his debut as a solo-director after having mainly directed for comedy, completely nails the film from start to finish. This is all anchored by the fantastic performances. Particularly Campbell, who commands the film and is one of the most likeable protagonists I've seen in a long time.

I really cannot recommend this movie enough to open-minded horror fans. It truly feel like it's destined to be a cult-favorite for years to come, and I can't wait to see what Creggor brings us next. This is an easy 5 out of 5 for me.

TedStixon

Halloween Ends is a movie that almost seems destined to piss off casual horror fans, and even many longtime franchise fans. Its choices are bold and often counter-intuitive. Far more time is devoted to character arcs and interpersonal relationships than scares and murder. Interesting themes are introduced about the nature of evil and how misplaced frustration can create monsters out of perfectly normal people. And even the lead boogeyman of the series is more of a nebulous background figure than overt threat for much of the runtime.

But you know what? That's exactly why I loved this movie. It felt like it was really trying to tell an honest, interesting story set to the backdrop of the Halloween universe. This is not a Halloween film for people who want gore and carnage. It's almost a Halloween film for people who have spent decades with the series, and want to see a more realistic rendition of the anguish a tragedy like the Myers murders can cause. It's dark. Oppressive. At times even utterly nihilistic. But there's also a little glimmer of hope there... hidden somewhere under the surface.

The film picks up four years after the events of the previous film. A young man named Corey Cunningham has become a pariah of Haddonfield, ostracized after accidentally causing the death of a child he was babysitting. Made into a new "boogeyman" by the misplaced hatred of the townspeople to replace the missing Michael Myers. But what will happen when he is pushed to his limits by the hostility of others? At the same time Laurie Strode is attempting to move on with her life, but the demons of her past are about to come calling, and will place her on a collision course with the madman who has been haunting her for over forty years...

I can absolutely understand this movie upsetting people who want a more traditional conclusion. But I gotta give it major props for being risky and taking a massive swing at the fence. Others may hate it but I really enjoyed it.

The story of Corey seems to be one of the biggest pieces of contention for fans, since it does technically take focus off of Myers himself. But I honestly think it's to the film's benefit in a strange way. Just because Myers isn't onscreen does not mean his presence is unfelt. The whole reason Corey is such a tragic figure is that the scars Myers has left on Haddonfield have caused everyone to "see" him in any and every potential act of evil. It's almost like the town is taking out their fear of Michael on him. And it's a really interesting way to explore the way Michael has changed everyone and keep him in the narrative without retreading familiar ground. That's not to say Michael has no presence though. He's there throughout the film... but he's almost like a nefarious puppet-master hiding behind the curtain. And when he does strike? Hoo, boy, is it wild!

For me, this was a really solid conclusion to the Halloween (2018) trilogy. I'd really recommend waiting a little while and giving it a second watch once that initial "high" (or that initial anger) of seeing it for the first time has calmed down. You might just notice more nuance and interesting handling of theme than you did the first time.

4 out of 5.

TedStixon

Whelp. It's kind of a bittersweet day in a weird way. Because I can no longer say "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" is my second favorite "Hellraiser" movie.

"Hellraiser (2022) " is a reboot done 100% right. It has enough familiar elements to honor what came before, while taking the story in a new direction, and expanding and altering the mythology enough for it to stand on its own.

I really like that they don't shy away from the ugly side of the characters. The protagonist is a recovering addict, and she isn't 100% likeable... in fact, she's quite unlikeable at first, but you grow attached to her because you realise she's a person in pain. It made her feel real and conflicted, and thus more compelling to watch.

David Bruckner's direction is top-notch. It's a very well put together film with a lot of style. The music is fantastic, and I like how it gradually begins to re-incorporate themes from the original as it goes on and we are gradually introduced to the world of the cenobites. And the cenobites themselves are FREAKY A.F.!

And yes... Jamie Clayton is amazing as the new Hell Priest/Pinhead. Her role is very similar to that in the original, where she only shows up in the second half really, and only has a few scenes... but they are impactful and she is genuinely intimidating.

I really, really hope this is successful enough to get sequels. I'd love to see this new rebooted franchise flourish. Especially if they can get Bruckner and Clayton back.

"Hellraiser (2022) " is a 4.5 out of 5 for me. (Rounding it up to 5 for MovieMistakes.) Loved it, loved it, LOVED IT! Definitely my second favorite after the original.

TedStixon

I'm so happy one of my local theaters managed to get the Fathom Event for "Clerks III." The first two films were very important to me as a teenager. And I was worried I wouldn't be able to see the third film on the big screen. But I was able to check it out last night, and I gotta say... this View Askew fan is very happy!

After Randall (Jeff Anderson) suffers a heart attack, his best friend Dante (Brian O'Halloran) agrees to help him make an independent film about his life working in the Quick Stop... not knowing that it will become an emotional and possibly devastating experience for all involved.

It's been hard not to notice that director Kevin Smith's last few films have had a certain rough, patchy quality to them. They've been a little sloppy and wonky, but still have his trademark wit. And "Clerks III" definitely continues this trend, albeit in a way that I think works really well. This film is very much a tribute to the indie original, so that roughness and slight sloppiness works in its favor. I also really enjoyed the performances. Especially Anderson, who gets the bulk of the film's screentime and really gets to stretch his acting chops. And the movie's balance of humor and heart is perfect. I didn't expect to cry at a "Clerks" movie, but there I was, fighting back tears at the theater last night... along with the rest of the audience.

It's not quite a perfect film, but I find it hard to imagine that any longtime fan of Smith or the first two films wouldn't like this. It's charming. It's funny. And its emotionally satisfying. I'm giving it a 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

Director David Leitch's "Bullet Train" may very well be the most underrated popcorn flick of 2022. It's not an incredible cinematic experience by any means, but it has a charm to it that's quite infectious. And it provides near constant entertainment value thanks to solid performances, slick camerawork and a good balance of absurd action and laugh-out-loud humor. I could definitely see this having a lasting cult appeal in years to come... I know I certainly plan on picking it up on 4K!

For now, I'm giving it a good 4 out of 5. Will update my review and make it longer and more detailed after I've had a chance to see it a second time.

TedStixon

"Prey" is without doubt the best entry in the long-running "Predator" saga since the classic 80's original. Which makes it all the more a shame that it's also the only one to skip theaters. The fact that unadulterated trash like "Aliens vs Predator: Requiem" and miscalculated misfires like "The Predator" got major theatrical pushes, while this genuine, well-made thriller got dumped onto streaming is a borderline crime.

Set three-hundred years in the past, "Prey" follows Naru (played in a star-making role by the magnificent Amber Midthunder), a Comanche healer who wants to become a hunter like her brother Taabe. (Dakota Beavers) However, these dreams will be put to the ultimate test when she finds her tribe face-to-face with an inhuman menace... a creature from beyond the stars... a predator. (Dane DiLiegro)

Before I get onto the review proper, I have to comment on something that drives me nuts, and is indeed haunting some of the rhetoric surrounding this film. That being the incessant desire certain individuals have to try and "cry woke" at every film that features anything other than exclusively cis, white, male characters. Guys... female characters are not a new thing. Non-white characters are not a new thing. LGBT+ characters are not a new thing. Sure, sometimes these things are done in a clumsy, token way, and in those cases it's fine to call it out as a weakness. But it's getting to the point that there mere implied presence of a female, black, gay, etc. character is suddenly seen as an inherently negative thing for these people. And I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous and more than a little bigoted. If the literal first thought you have upon seeing a woman is "this is leftist, woke propaganda " then maybe the movie isn't the problem. Maybe... just maybe... the problem is you. (Gasp!)

Back to the review...

Written and directed by Dan Trachtenberg, who also helmed the excellent "10 Cloverfield Lane," "Prey" is incredibly refreshing within this franchise thanks to its inherent simplicity, startling new setting and the excellent handling of the material. I really found the straight-forward nature of the plot to be a huge benefit to the movie. Part of the reason the original film worked so well is that it was essentially a classic man-against-beast story at its core (despite some deviations along the path), and this film functions much in the same way. Unlike some of the other, lesser sequels, there isn't a lot of needless padding and mumbo-jumbo to bog the film down. It's clear and concise, and puts almost all of its focus on the characters and the central conflict.

I also really adored the film's use of setting. The fact it mostly takes place in the Great Plains and in the distant past creates instant opportunities for complimenting and contrasting with the original. It also subconsciously aids in the sense of dread, because we know the characters are going to be limited by their lack of modern technology. This also leads to some of the film's more clever - and at times hilarious - moments. A scene involving the re-loading of old-fashioned muskets in particular drew huge laughs in my house. And to credit the film, there actually is an effort made to show that the predator is also a little less advanced at this point in time, which I enjoyed.

And just in general, I can't say enough about the film's general execution. The performances are uniformly phenomenal, but Midthunder is the biggest revelation to come from movie. While she has had something of a successful career in television, and a smattering of film roles, I can see this movie opening big doors for her. She knocks it out of the park, and is incredibly likeable and determined. The handling of theme and character is also expertly done, with our leads all getting a complete arc throughout. And in terms of direction? This is a very slick, stylish film with some interesting choices in shots, a solid sense of pace, and typically stellar visual storytelling. The only place the film fell a little flat for me was the CGI - specifically the CGI used for animals. The animation was typically decent... but they had that weird, uncanny artificial look that you sometimes get. (I think it was mostly the fur. Fur is one of those things that never really looks right digitally.)

I really can't say enough to this film's credit. It's not only indisputably the best "Predator" movie since the original. But it has re-invigorated my interest in the series after the last few films effectively killed it. Here's to hoping Trachtenberg sticks with the series and gives us a proper sequel! I'm giving "Prey" a 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to 5 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

An incredibly biting satire that deconstructs politics through the views of high school, director Alexander Payne's 1999 opus "Election" is one of those films that holds up remarkably well, especially in the wake of the wickedly divisive, pandemoniacal political climate that has plagued the United States for the last half-decade under the rule of a certain controversial figure. So strange how a film that seemed timely at its release over twenty years ago can only grow in troubling relevance so many years later. But ultimately, I suppose that's just an unintentional symptom of the malady and malaise of modern politics.

A high school civics teacher (Matthew Broderick) finds himself pushed to his limits - and perhaps beyond - during a student body election when an obsessive and manipulative over-achiever (Reese Witherspoon) runs for president. And what follows is an odyssey of back-stabbing, selfishness and revelations... So, basically your usual election, to be perfectly honest.

The film's great strengths lay within its top-notch performances and wonderfully dark, subversive, satirical humor. How anyone could possible say Broderick and Witherspoon cannot act after seeing this film is frankly dumbfounding to me, and stinks of obvious negative bias. Witherspoon in particular is a revelation, giving her character Tracy Flick is genuinely sense of subconscious threat and ruthlessness hidden cleverly behind a squeaky, bubbly facade. While Witherspoon may have been relegated to standard rom-coms as of late, "Election" is the film that proved when given the right material, she is a remarkable performer. There's a reason this character is still studied and appreciated... and Witherspoon's razor-sharp performance is a huge part of that Not to say Broderick isn't absolutely fantastic in the film, because he very much is, and his increasingly unstable, unhinged performance is just wonderful.

And while Payne's filmography has always felt a little frustrating to me - I personally find it an odd mixture between the drastically overrated and the woefully underrated - I do think this is him at his very best. The laughs that this film elicits are genuine, and the themes run deep, even if they can feel a little obvious at times. There are moments in this film that are genuinely hilarious while also feeling troubling and uncomfortable. And Payne seems to relish in the story he is telling. I also found the genuine quality of the production to be top-notch, especially for the budgetary level Payne was working with.

In the end, "Election" might not be a film for everyone. But it is an effective parable and a unsparing metaphor that should be seen at least once by everyone. You just might see a splash of the real, modern world inside it.

5 out of 5. One of the best films of 1999.

TedStixon

"The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" is often held in very low regard by a large portion of the fanbase. It was met with a lukewarm reception on initial release, and time has not been kind to it. It's now at best considered mediocre by fans and general audiences, and at worst woof. Let's just say this isn't a well-liked film.

But is this stone cold reception deserved? In all honesty... I don't think it's that bad. Yes, I'm not ashamed to admit that while it isn't a particularly good film, it's still totally watchable and there's a quite a bit to like. It's decent enough dumb-fun. It's just unfortunately a bit of a rough ride to get to the good stuff.

The O'Connell family (Brendan Fraser, Maria Bello, John Hannah, Luke Ford) find themselves in a new adventure when the dreaded and fierce Chinese Dragon Emperor (Jet Li) is brought back from the grave, and seeks to take over the world with his terracotta army. And their journey will be filled with non-stop peril, including zombie warriors, enormous yeti and a shape-shifting foe!

While director Rob Cohen's name has been tainted by some troubling recent allegations, I have to say the film is typically well-shot and well-staged. It's very competently made. The musical score by Randy Edelman and John Debney is thrilling and heroic - especially the catchy main theme. The myriad of action set-pieces are consistently fun and thrilling. And the film actually has some decent jokes, typically involving the long-suffering Jonathan. (A certain painfully bad gag with a yak notwithstanding.)

I also enjoyed the cast for the most part. Particularly Fraser and Hannah, the only returning actors in this installment. Both are endlessly likeable and consistently charming. It's also a great deal of fun seeing Jet Li in a villainous role. He chews the scenery just right, and is quite menacing. And we even get a classy turn from the wonderful Michelle Yeoh as an ancient sorceress.

Where the film falters is its staggeringly predictable narrative and the dark shadow that the recasting of Evie cast over the proceedings. Written by the usually reliable Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, the movie is an absolute slave to formula, and it can make it a bit rough at times. And that's a shame, because Gough and Millar have delivered quality work in the past, contributing to films like "Shanghai Noon" and "Spider-Man 2." And I can't help but say it - Maria Bello just isn't quite the right match for Evie. Mainly in that she and Fraser lack that vital chemistry needed for the characters. Bello is a wonderful actress, but she just feels a little out of place. It's a real shame Rachel Weisz didn't come back. Her inclusion might have given the film the boost it needed.

But in the end, I honestly have to say that I feel the film has enough positive elements to outweigh the negatives. I enjoyed the action, loved the score and thought it was quite well-made. Like I said it's a totally watchable bit of dumb-fun. And for me, that was enough to make it worth seeing.

I'm giving it a solid 3 out of 5. (It's probably closer to a 3-and-a-half, but I don't know that I'd want to round up to a 4.) It's definitely the weakest of the trilogy. But I think it's still worth checking out at least once. Go in with an open mind and no pre-conceived notions, and you just might like it.

TedStixon

It's interesting how cinematic trends have allowed the "Scream" franchise to continue and flourish since the turn of the millennium, keeping the series ever-relevant. After a surprisingly solid return with 2011's "Scream 4," a clever take on the popular trend of horror remakes that polluted the silver screen in the 2000's and 2010's, the franchise is once again resurrected with 2022's "Scream." And this time, the film's sights are firmly set on the modern fad of the "soft-reboot" or "requel."

Twenty-five years after the original murder-spree, the town of Woodsboro is rocked again when a new "Ghostface" attack occurs, cripplingly injuring a young woman. Soon enough, bodies begin to pile up, and it becomes clear that there's a dark, twisted pattern to the murders... and that everyone targeted shares deep connections to the past...

As always, the film's sharp meta-commentary shines brightly. Heck... even the title is essentially a giant meta-joke about how modern sequels simply recycle the title of the original (2018's "Halloween," 2011's "The Thing," etc.), which sadly seems to have flown over a lot of people's heads. There's a reason it isn't called "Scream 5," guys. Targeting soft-reboots is a clever way to modernize the franchise, and it supplies the fodder for many jokes, gags and shocks. There's also some genuinely interesting insight offered on things like toxic fandom, which has become a serious issue over the last ten years, in addition to some fun friendly jabs at elevated horror. (If you're an A24 fan like me, you'll definitely get some hilarious self-deprecating laughs.) It's nice to see these things cleverly addressed in a film.

The cast is genuinely electrifying, and lend a lot to the proceedings. Newcomer Melissa Barrera steals the show as our new lead Samantha - a woman with a dark secret who is drawn into the conflict. She's the beating heart of the movie and is absolutely excellent. Fellow newcomers Jenna Ortega, Jack Quaid and Mikey Madison also fare very well. But special props go to Mason Gooding and especially Jasmin Savoy Brown as two people closely related to the late Randy Meeks, and who very much take his place in the story. They are an absolute blast and a half.

Not to say our returning legacy cast aren't amazing, because they absolutely are. It's certainly nice to see Neve Campbell receive a career-resurgence as of late, with roles on popular shows like "House of Cards" and in big-budget movies like "Skyscraper." And she shines yet again as Sidney Prescott, reminding us just why we first fell in love with her back in the 90's. Here's to hoping we'll see a lot more of her in the future. Courtney Cox is also wonderful as Gale Weathers, and is just as deliciously slimy and weirdly likeable as ever. While she's mainly focused on producing and directing since the end of her underrated series "Cougar Town," she slips right back into the role. But surprisingly, David Aquette is perhaps the most interesting of the three returning heroes. Arquette has had one of the most bizarre and unconventional Hollywood careers perhaps of all time... he's worked consistently and has his fingers in everything from acting to producing to directing to hosting... but it's almost always weird, strange personal projects or things made exclusively for cult audiences. But his turn as former deputy Dewey is outstanding, as the character takes a decidedly darker turn this time around. And it makes me hope that Arquette gets more serious mainstream acting gigs in the future, because he knocked it out of the park.

Directorial duties are handled by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, who made the absolutely delightful and utterly insane "Ready or Not," and they slip right into the role with a sense of class and competence. While nobody will be able to replace the late and great Wes Craven, Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett are able to guide the film expertly, honoring what came before and injecting some fresh energy into the proceedings. This still feels like "Scream" thought and through... just with a slight spit-and-polish added. Their camerawork and sense of pacing are top-notch, and the way they handle the suspense and humor is pretty much pitch-perfect for the material. And they're quickly becoming a force to reckon with in the world of horror.

In the end, I really can't praise 2022's "Scream" enough. It's a fantastic new installment that honors what came before while taking the series on some interesting new directions. As a life-long horror fan, I was thrilled. And as someone who has loved the series since I saw the first film's broadcast cable premiere back in the 90's, and who essentially grew up with the original trilogy, I was completely and utterly satisfied.

"Scream" easily earns a near-perfect 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to a 5 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

"Krampus" is a wonderfully freaky little horror-comedy that came out back in 2015, and has quickly become a new holiday classic for weirdos everywhere. Taking obvious cues from movies like "Gremlins," the film is both scary and hilarious in equal measure, and is a total blast of holiday mayhem.

The dysfunctional Engel family has gathered for Christmas, and things couldn't be more stressful. Parents are drifting apart, kids are fighting, babies are crying... and it's all too much for little Max Engel to handle. In his sadness, he loses his Christmas spirit, inadvertently summoning a dark, demented spirit... the Shadow of Saint Nicholas... Krampus. And now, the family must band together to survive Krampus' assault of killer gingerbread men, evil possessed toys and freakish mutant elves!

With an excellent cast including the absolutely fabulous Toni Collette, the charming Adam Scott and the hilarious David Koechner, the movie is just a ton of fun from start to finish. It's never too scary not to be funny... and never too funny not to be scary. It a razor's edge, and director/co-writer Dougherty walks it masterfully. It's a very well-crafted film with top-notch entertainment value.

I also have to really commend the atmosphere and overall production. The effects, both practical and digital, are wonderfully realised. The titular Krampus himself in particular is borderline awe-inspiring in his old-school suit/puppeted execution. In addition, the sound design is top notch and the production design is phenomenal... the movie really does an excellent job making you "feel" the cold winter outside... you'll practically be shivering yourself.

I really can't recommend this movie enough to open-minded horror fans. Especially if you love Dougherty's other holiday-horror film "Trick 'r Treat," to which this film serves as a perfect companion piece.

4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to 5 for Movie Mistakes).

TedStixon

The greatest credit I can give to "Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City" is that it made me appreciate the previous Paul W.S. Anderson films all the more. Sure, those movies had little to do with the games and took far too many liberties, but at least they had some entertainment value behind them. By contrast, this new take on the classic video-game is dead on arrival, with atrociously bad effects, poor performances and a frankly shocking lack of pace or structure. It's a dull, dreary mess where things just sort-of randomly happen for 90 or so minutes with no set-up, buildup or pay-off, and then it just stops. It doesn't even properly end. The movie literally just stops.

I'd give a plot summary, but frankly there's no plot to speak of. I guess it's sort-of about a really sleepy cop (I genuinely feel bad about how tired he is), two cranky siblings and a couple of commandos aimlessly wandering around town... and maybe running into a zombie or two once every 5 or 10 minutes of screentime? Rinse and repeat about a dozen times. That's basically all the plot there is. And I guess they try to talk about the evil Umbrella Corporation a few times and set them up as the big villains... but the company has literally no presence in the film outside of brief pieces of lip-service, so they don't feel like a credible threat.

Pretty much right around the time sleepy cop manages to snooze through an 18 wheeler crashing and exploding literally fifteen feet in front of him... only to be woken up by a gunshot thirty seconds later, I checked out. I knew this was a movie where logic, reason and basic storytelling rules do not apply.

I wasn't surprised to see Johannes Roberts' name listed as the writer/director. The man managed to make two of the dullest, blandest movies I've ever seen with his atrocious "47 Meters Down" duology. And this movie is another big old piece of crap to lump on to his impressively underwhelming filmography.

The only good thing about this movie, and I do mean the only good thing, is that there's a few fun references and callbacks to the games for fans. I was particularly amused by the reference to the infamous "Jill sandwich" meme. Other than a few fun references though, this movie was one of the biggest let-downs of the year.

Ok, I'll also admit a certain shot with a flying cow towards the end made me chuckle, which I think was an intentional laugh... it gave me pleasant flashbacks of seeing "Twister" as a kid. But then again... you shouldn't remind audiences of a better movie during your bad movie.

1 out of 5. Don't even bother.

TedStixon

Spin-off shows are always a bit of a risk when it comes to television. For every resounding success, there's a failure. For every "Daria" or "Better Call Saul," there's a "Joey" or a "That 80's Show." They're a gamble at best, and a guaranteed failure at worst. But every once in a while, you'll get a good one. A great one even. A new series that not only honors the show from which it branched off, but also expands the universe and is able to succeed on its own merits.

And it should come as no surprise that co-creator Joss Whedon was able to deliver just such a series with the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" spin-off "Angel." Running for five seasons on the now defunct WB, the series places its focus on the titular Angel, a vampire with a soul who uses his powers and enhanced abilities to hunt bad-guys and save the day. And thanks to a remarkable cast, a fantastically dark tone and some excellent writing, it succeeds as one of the best spin-offs in recent memory - a wonderful show that both compliments and contrasts with the original.

David Boreanaz stars as Angel, whom has just relocated to Los Angeles and spends his nights protecting random citizens from various supernatural threats. After a series of events leads to his reunion with former Sunnydale resident Cordelia Chase (Charisma Carpenter), along with meeting several new allies, "Angel Investigations" is created - a supernatural detective agency that seeks to protect mankind and help the helpless. And standing in their way is an increasingly dangerous assortment of demons and adversaries... many with ties to a mysterious law firm known as Wolfram and Hart.

Though the name Joss Whedon has practically become a piece of profanity as of late due to seemingly unending personal controversies, he and fellow co-creator David Greenwalt really struck gold when it came to this series. While Angel certainly had his place in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," the fact is the character was ripe for expansion. And this series served as the perfect platform to do so.

David Boreanaz leads the series with a strong, brooding performance that sets the tone for the overall show. He gives the character so much pathos and humanity, though also wisely shows a sense of humor in just the right places. He's just sublime. Carpenter is a joy as the returning character Cordelia. She started as an archetypical queen-bee mean-girl on "Buffy," but she absolutely shines in this series, as the character is given much more depth and a greater focus. And then there's the various supporting cast members, who are all phenomenal in their own way. Perhaps of greatest note are Alexis Denisof as the returning character Wesley Wyndam-Pryce and the late Andy Hallett as a delightful demonic ally known as Lorne. Denisof's Wesley has a magnificent character arc over the show's five seasons, while Hallett brings such a warmth to the series. I also very much enjoyed J. August Richards and Amy Acker as newcomers who join the Angel Investiations during the course of the series. Both bring a lot to their characters. And a special note goes out to the late Glenn Quinn, Julie Benz, Mercedes McNab, James Marsters and Christian Kane, who pad out the cast in supporting roles, and each give very good performances.

The tone of the series is also very important, and is one of the key factors to its success. While "Buffy" deftly mixed drama with a near constant sense of humor, and often felt much more light-hearted with the exception of key episodes, "Angel" is by contrast a much grittier, inkier series throughout. It still has a sense of humor, but it makes no qualms about what it is - this show is incredibly dark at times, and deals with heavy themes. And it works very well. This feels like a more grown-up series than its predecessor, and is just as rewarding, but in different ways.

And this is aided by the typically expert writing. Whedon's shows are often praised for their witty dialogue and clever storylines, and that is very much the case with "Angel." While some seasons may be stronger than others, it consistently feels nuanced and mature, and tackles stories that will leave you feeling quite uncomfortable and questioning what you would do in the same situation. And these stories make it a very engaging watch.

That praise being said, this series is not without its faults. There are some minor - and occasionally moderate - issues that hold it just shy of perfection in my eyes. The chief offender of which is the show's notorious fourth season, which unfortunately just doesn't measure up in comparison to the other, much more rewarding years. While I won't spoil anything, I will say that the fourth season really damages some of the characters. Almost irreparably. And it makes it a rough sit. I also feel that on the whole, the show has a somewhat greater ratio of misses-to-hits than "Buffy" ever did. Several of the monster-of-the-week storylines fall flat on their face, while certain storylines often feel needlessly drawn out and over-complicated. And it does impact my overall feelings about the series.

But those complaints aside, "Angel" is a series that I'd still heartily recommend. Despite a weak fourth season and a fistful of bad episodes, the majority of the show succeeds wonderfully thanks to the excellent cast, sharp writing and deliciously grim tone. And it easily earns an excellent 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to 5 for MovieMistakes.) It's one of the best spin-offs in recent memory, and is still worth checking out twenty years later.

TedStixon