The Snowman (2017) - WORST REMAKE EVER

 

In a way, I kind of have a love/hate relationship with remakes. Some of them are great. In fact my favourite movie, "John Carpenter's The Thing", is technically a remake of an older film. David Cronenberg's version of "The Fly" is of course a disgusting classic, as is the lesser known Chuck Russell version of "The Blob". There is "Cat People" but we don't talk about "Cat People", unless it's in reference to Nastassja Kinski. 

"Nastassja, is that your father, Klaus, poking a rifle into my back,
or are you just glad to see me?"
"What?"
"Please, help." 

But all those films had one thing in common, and no it wasn't just that they actually updated the stories of the original films with groundbreaking special effects of the time and the unique visions of the individual directors. It was that they were all made in the fucking 80s and therefore they piss on anything that ever came out in subsequent decades. And yes, fat nerds, that includes your precious MCU. How does it feel knowing that each viewing of "Avengers: Endgame" is directly correlated with a marked decrease in Testosterone levels? I don't need a fucking study. You need Kurt Russell.

"Is that a shotgun in my hands pointed at your face,
or am I just glad to see you?"
"What?"
"NO." (Shotgun blast)

(Side Note: Even though "The Thing" is my favourite movie, let it be known that "Tombstone" is the best movie ever made and don't ever let the question part from your lips ever again, less you want them NO'd into oblivion)

So anyways, the original "The Snowman" is a Christmas classic. Fine animation, atmospheric music and an iconic main song sung by Aled Jones culminates in a bittersweet little tale told without a single line of dialogue. It's animation and indeed visual storytelling at its finest. Plus it made a cracking Irn Bru ad. 

 This on the other hand:

This is a fucking travesty.

I'm sad to admit that I was pumped for this movie. I mean sure, Disney's live action remakes of their own animated classics have largely been an exercise in redundancy as far as I'm concerned, but this was different. They got the guy who made "Let the Right One In" to direct and personally I thought Michael Fassbender was a fantastic choice to play the titular Snowman. 

But upon viewing the film I was utterly shocked to find that he never once dons a snowman costume. In fact there are multiple snowmen in the film, not just one; and not only does Michael Fassbender not play any of them, none of the others actually do anything. They sit there. They don't even fly or tragically melt at the end making children cry.  

Plus there are a lot more dead women than I remember in the original film. Granted it's been a while since I've seen it and my memory is fuzzy, but I don't recall there being any serial murderers in the original. I know Hollywood has this obsession with "gritty reimaginings" of things but quite frankly this is exactly the same as pissing on the Quran. 

"Who cares, GLENN," I here you dribble incoherently, "It's a different movie, GLENN. You should separate it from the original, GLENN." Okay, fine. But even if you do separate it from the original in your mind and treat it as its own entity, the movie is still shit. Shit I tell you!

Michael Fassbender plays Inspector Harry Hole, who works for the Oslo police and is an amalgam of just about every hard drinking, chain smoking, estranged and generally traumatized TV detective out there. When women start turning up missing with only the calling card of a snowman built near the scenes of the crimes, it's up to the Inspector and his plucky female sidekick to discover the Hole truth. 

Firstly, this is pretty much every serial killer movie ever made but worse. As stated previously Harry Hole is the archetype Will Graham-esque traumatized detective, who despite being an alcoholic with a habit of sleeping in children's playgrounds, also happens to be a brilliant practitioner whose cases are studied in universities. You have the estranged family issues, which don't amount to much; there's some implied corruption in local business circles, which, again, amounts to very little; and whilst the movie takes itself undeservedly seriously this film is home to some occasional moments of serial killer silliness that seem more at home in an episode of "A Touch of Cloth" than a serious mystery film. 

For example; Chloe Sevigny stars as one of the ultimate victims of the killer and upon the discovery of her headless corpse, the police investigate the nearby area only to find her severed head perched atop the body of a snowman, complete with stick arms and buttons made out of clusters of coffee beans for some reason. Although this shouldn't have surprised me given Chloe Sevigny's past of giving head for a film production. 

It's just one of the moments where you sit there and think "Why?" Why would anyone do that? The killing women part I get. Hell, I even sympathize. But not even the Zodiac would pull this kind nonsense. And when a further moment comes where the killer blows off Val Kilmer's head with a shotgun (yes, Val Kilmer is in this film and suffering from some sort of square face syndrome) and places an apparently pre-made snowman head on the stump where Val Kilmer's head used to be, this is when you start to realize that this movie may be taking itself seriously, but it certainly isn't taking you seriously. 

Speaking of Val Kilmer, it took me a while into the movie to realize that all of his scenes in the film are in fact meant to be flashbacks. This only further complicates the overly convoluted and incoherent plot. Entire plotlines established are never resolved and you end up phasing in and out of paying attention and wondering why anyone is where they are, what's going on and why in the frozen hell I see pictured before me (AKA: Norway) should I give a fraction of a shit? It isn't surprising then when Tomas Alfredson, the director, comes out and says that a good percentage of the screenplay was never actually filmed due to time constraints.  

On top of all this you have what has got to be the shittiest serial killer death of all time. I figured out who the killer was fairly early on and when it's finally revealed who he is and what his reasons for doing what he's doing are - SPOILER ALERT: His abusive dick of a father didn't want him, he and his mother tried to chase him down in their car as he left which resulted in his mother going catatonic at the wheel and allowing the car to skid out on to the ice and sink into the lake with the future murderer managing to get free before the fateful moment - we are treated to the inevitable scene where the detective's loved ones are kidnapped and held hostage by the murderer. Pretty textbook so far.

A scuffle ensues and Harry Hole chases the killer down to a frozen lake for a showdown that mirrors the opening flashback and... get ready for this... the killer falls down an opening in the ice. So I guess you could say that... the Hole won in the end. 

Seriously though, what a shitty villain death. The Tooth Fairy killer's fake death in "Red Dragon" was better than that. You mean to tell me you had me track through ten inches and two hours of a boring, incoherent, incomplete and cliched mess of a fucking serial killer movie, and you can't even give me a proper villain death? I hate to harp on this but a good villain death, in my opinion, is an important thing. The audience wants to see the killer get his comeuppance and all you can give us is him falling down a fishin' hole and not coming back up again. Terrible.

And to top it all off, they make a point of trying to blame everything on the killer's illegitimate father. You know, instead of his mother who decided to commit suicide in front of him and possibly even kill him in the process. Good job, drunk detective who sleeps in playgrounds and has no actual family of his own. Your opinions are duly noted. 

 

Add to all this a dreary film-making style, largely morose performances and the Hole's female sidekick's revenge plotline ends in a wet fart with no real emotional reaction and what you're left with is a serial killer film that's somehow worse than "The Bone Collector". And believe me, that's saying something. 

Overall Quality Rating - 1/5

There is almost nothing I can recommend this movie for. It's not as imaginative in its filming or direction or concept as "Let the Right One In" and it lacks any of the intrigue of the similarly convoluted "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy". It certainly doesn't live up to the quality of past genre standards like "Manhunter", "The Silence of the Lambs" or "Se7en". Nothing shocking, nothing memorable, and overall the WORST REMAKE EVER.

Idiot Rating - 1.5/5

I give it an extra .5 for the Idiot Rating due to the aforementioned snowman corpse art, as well as the fact that every time I saw Chloe Sevigny's severed head all I could think of was that they'd best make sure Vincent Gallo wasn't allowed anywhere near the set. Outside of that you really don't have much to laugh at, although I will say that J.K Simmons' weirdly well executed posh English accent provided a few moments of mirth. Plus scenes where Val Kilmer acts like a drunken lunatic on the roof of the police station probably represents this film at its apex. 

Doc Holliday, what happened to you?

"Hey, is that a gun in your pocket or is that Tuberculosis?"
"It's Tuberculosis."
"Oh." (Dies of Tuberculosis)

 

I'm DeadEye and Merry Christmas ya filthy animals.  

Triple Feature Horror Round Up : The Woman in Black, The Craft, Upgrade - SPOILERS

No preamble. Let's just get to the fucking point. No I'm not grumpy, you're grumpy.

As always, there will be an Overall Quality Rating, which rates the actual goodness or otherwise of the film; and the Idiot Rating which rates general hilarity. And with that, fuck off down there with you. 

The Woman In Black (2012) - James Watkins

I happen to have read the 1983 novella 'The Woman In Black' by Susan Hill, which this film and its earlier 1989 adaptation for ITV (which is on YouTube, albeit with Spanish subtitles, and you should definitely watch) is based on; and whilst I can appreciate the quiet, low key creepiness of the novel, I can definitely understand a lot of the embellishments that were added into its subsequent adaptations. Quite frankly if you deigned to be 100% faithful and accurate to the source material on this one then what you'd end up with is about an hour tops of a pale looking 19th century gentleman cycling around a dreary village sifting through large swathes of paperwork in a dusty mansion. Works on paper with the right scribe, on screen it's coma material. 

But whilst Nigel Kneale (legendary British TV writer and creator of the 'Quatermass' series) took the gentile English ghost story and adapted it to screen with subtly chilling effect; Jane Goldman and James Watkins take this premise and do what most horror film-makers do nowadays. Jump out and yell BOO.

Don't get me wrong here. 'The Woman In Black' (2012) is not a bad film by any stretch. It's nicely filmed, the settings are effective and atmospheric, no one really gives a bad performance and some of the ideas and embellishments are enjoyable. It just happens to be one of those films where the plot often takes a backseat to people walking down dark corridors investigating noises that no one in their right goddamn mind would bother to ever investigate.

In short, it's British 'The Conjuring' with nicer visuals and a template based on a classic ghost story.

And you know what that means. That's right.
This Monkey toy gets a half a dozen side movies.

Daniel Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer whose wife dies in childbirth and is left to provide and care for his young son. Unfortunately this is early 1900s Great Britain and people think mental health leave is when you go to the local sanitarium and pay to poke the inmates with a walking stick and laugh, so Arthur's boss issues an ultimatum; "Very sorry about your dead wife and all, old chap, but get back to work or you're fired." 

As such Arthur accepts an assignment to the small village of Crythin Gifford to sort through the affairs of the recently deceased Alice Drablow. Who, as it happens, lived in a house on a small island connected to the mainland via a path surrounded by foggy marshes which tends to disappear underwater for large portions of the day. There's also a crucifix sticking up out of the marsh. The only way this could be more of a red flag is if Satan himself were standing at the mouth of the road with a sign saying 'Rapist Clown Party This Way.' 

Naturally not one person in the whole village wants to accommodate Arthur, let alone speak of the place; so he ends up having to bribe a local horse and carriage man (named Keckwick whose name amuses me for some reason) to take him out to Eel Marsh house and complete his assignment. 

He sees the eponymous Woman in Black and finds out that whenever someone sees the ghost of the woman, a child in the village inevitably dies. 

Which leads me to asking a couple of highly irrelevant questions. First of all, how far from the house is the Woman in Black's influence? Obviously it extends to the village, but what about beyond? If not - and given that so many people have been victimized by the WIB in the form of their children's horrible deaths - why not just leave? 

I mean, what are you leaving behind, really? I know that if I happened to live in a run down hole in the middle of nowhere with no career prospects and a madman who'll stab my dog to death if I so much as spy him wanking into the flower bed at the end of my garden, I'd swallow any sentimental feelings I had and get on the next bus to... anywhere that doesn't have that. 

Secondly, if leaving really is out of the question (and by extension, so is burning down the house and/or blowing up the pathway with dynamite), why give Arthur the cold shoulder? I mean it's not like he knows. You could try, I don't know... telling him about the curse lady? Sure, he may not believe you but if it really is a matter of your children's lives then I'd at least give it a go. Worst case scenario - he thinks you're a bit loony and goes anyway. Best case scenario - he still thinks you're a bit mental, but decides not to chance it, goes back home and gets a job as a chimney sweep. 

Chim-chiminy-chim-chiminy-chim-chim-charoon!
I'm covered in soot and I look like a co....

Like I said before, it's not a bad movie as such. As was previously stated it's nicely shot and well acted. The jumpscares, though overly frequent, are quite well built up and executed. But any way you slice it, you took a classic ghost story and slapped a bunch of 'The Conjuring' scares on to it. It's what I like to call a 'Funhouse Movie.' Isn't really scary, might give you a bit of a thrill, but ultimately is just a bunch of BOO jumpscares. Even the WIB herself is turned into little more than a computer generated Halloween decoration. 

Beyond that you have a fairly repetitive story. He goes to the house and witnesses creepy shit, goes back to the village where someone dies; goes back to the house and witnesses creepy shit, goes back to the village where someone dies, etc, etc. On top of this the ending, quite different to the original novel, rubbed me the wrong way. Yes the 1989 version also changed things a little from the novel's ending, but it was only slight and it was much more effective. Here it came off corny and lacked the chill of the novel or 1989 version's endings. 

Overall Quality Rating - 3/5

If you're looking for a slightly more upmarket 'The Conjuring' where people walk down corridors and wait to get jumped by ghost muggers wearing balaclavas then you could go worse. It has the advantage of having been based on a decent ghost story and having some good direction and set design. 

Idiot Rating - 2/5

There are a couple of silly jumpscares, especially when the WIB is computer generated. One of the better embellishments from the original story is the addition of Arthur's 'sidekick' character Samuel Daily having a wife who is not only completely off her meds due to the death of their son (to the point of dressing up small dogs, sitting them down at the dinner table and treating them like babies), but at one point becomes possessed by the spirit of a dead child, resulting in one of the funnier scenes of the film. 

The Craft (1996) - Andrew Fleming

  

"Glenn," you might be asking, alone in your room and out loud for some reason, "why are you reviewing a movie clearly intended for teenage girls?"

Well, I could ask you, what are you doing reading a review of a movie clearly intended for teenage girls? For that matter, why don't you have a job? Why are your parents disappointed in you? What are you doing on that chair with that rope around your neck? There are many questions in this world for which there are no answers. For now, let me tell you about this movie for teenage girls. 

So this is one of those movies that I've seen several times but I always forget about. As such I end up watching it again and then forgetting about it again, only to then watch it again. I repeat this process until someone intervenes. As of yet no one has. 

But evidently someone didn't forget about this movie, because not only is a bit of a cult film, but it also has finally garnered a sequel from the acclaimed Blumhouse Productions. 

To comment on it quickly, I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be a remake or a sequel. The similar premise - teenage girl moves to new town, goes to new school, meets weird witch friends, hilarity ensues - and the whole 'light as a feather, stiff as a board' thing from the original suggest remake. Meanwhile the subtitle 'Legacy' (ugh) and the inclusion of pics of Fairuza Balk's character also from the original suggest sequel. Aside from this ambiguity, it's what you'd expect from a modern trailer: vaguely feminist sentiments intercut with an ambient monged out version of 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.' Also David Duchovny. 

'Scully this has all the hallmarks of sassy teenage witchcraft.'

But I have to say, I'm disappointed. Being a die-hard Meninist, I am shocked and appalled that Hollywood hasn't lived up to its commitment to diversity and gender-swapped the whole thing. I mean clearly everyone is crying out for an all male version of this fi....

Arrgh! Get it away! Kill it! Arrgh!

So the original film begins with Sarah (Robin Tunney) moving to Los Angeles with her father and stepmother, and immediately I'm getting deja vu because Jesus if Robin Tunney doesn't look almost exactly like Kristen Stewart in 'Twilight'.

The similarities continue as Sarah endures her first day at school and ends up making friends with three outcast school girls: Bonnie (Neve Campbell) who sports burns over a good portion of her body which are never explained, Rochelle (Rachel True) who is the black one, and Nancy (Fairuza Balk), who one fluctuates between wanting to sleep with on the one hand, and on the other, to feed her raw meat from the safety of an underwater cage. 

Horny or Hungry? You be the judge. 

As it happens the three girls are looking for a 'fourth' to complete their coven and become all powerful witches. Upon becoming all powerful they do exactly what you'd expect teenage girls to do: use said power to settle personal grievances with other school girls. And change their hair colour. 

Okay, that's unfair. Nancy does end up using her power to kill her abusive trailer trash father, resulting in she and her mother receiving a hefty life insurance payout. Sarah on the other hand uses her power to cast a love spell on a football player who spread rumours about her and turns him into a simp who carries her books for her. Bonnie gets rid of the burns on her body and goes to school the next day baring some skin. And Rochelle makes the blonde bitch's hair fall out after she receives some mild racist abuse from her. 

Of course such things have their price, as Sarah's unfortunate paramour hangs around outside her house watching her sleep, not being able to eat or sleep himself due to the spell. For some reason she agrees to go on another date with him where he attempts to force himself her, shouting "IT'S GONNA HAPPEN!" And to be honest, what did anyone expect? You turn him into a male feminist and then you act shocked when he tries to rape you? It's a toxic combination. Entitlement issues and raging male hormones are not a good mix. And yet, despite the schoolboy lies, horrific simping, creepy behaviour and even the attempted rape; all in all it was STILL a better love story than 'Twilight'.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.

For Bonnie and Rochelle there isn't that much in the way of comeuppance. They see themselves in a mirror looking like the very things they fear to be and then run away leaving Nancy to finish off Sarah. And really that's where my criticism of this film lies. If anything it's just not edgy enough. Sarah almost gets raped. Bonnie and Rochelle just kind of lose their powers by the end. In fact the most memorable and perhaps edgiest element of the film is Fairuza Balk as Nancy, who chews the scenery and ends up being responsible for the film's two solitary deaths.

Overall though, it ends up being just as you probably suspected earlier. Forgettable. Perhaps relatable enough for teenage girls to garner some cult status, but nowhere near shocking enough for any seasoned horror fans. 

But then, what did I expect? It's a film for teenage girls. 

Overall Quality Rating - 3/5

Forgettable? Sure. Lacking in any real horror? Affirmative. Entertaining? Well you could go worse shoving something on for your 90s nostalgia meetup. It's got that 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' aesthetic that's kind of nice to see once in a while. Maybe that's why I end up watching it once every few years. It's the decade I grew up in and for all its flaws it represents the the time period rather nicely. Plus it has a decent cover of Peter Gabriel's 'I Have the Touch' in the end credits, so there's that. 

Idiot Rating - 3/5

Not only does it have some questionable effects, Fairuza Balk's scenery chewing is the most fun you'll have with this film. Especially towards the end where she's floating several feet off the ground, slamming Sarah into walls and generally going completely apeshit. 

Upgrade (2018) - Leigh Whannell

Aussie film-maker Leigh Whannell made a name for himself creating, writing and acting in such films and franchises as the "Saw" series, the "Insidious" series, "Dead Silence" and "Cooties". Whether you consider these examples of cinematic genius or outright war crimes, one must admit, the guy will go down as highly influential in the annals of horror cinema. 

Personally, I have a kind of love hate relationship with the guy. "Saw"? Meh. "Insidious"? Only one I really liked was the second one and that's because it was a high level Idiot Movie. Really the whole series should have been centered around the ghost hunters rather than the same middle class family we always see in these kinds of films. 

But I've always watched him with interest, because even in some of the crap he's made, he's always had some fun ideas. And now we get to "Upgrade". Probably his best film in my humble opinion. 

The film follows mechanic and technophobe Grey Trace, who may have the most boring sci-fi name of all time. He and his wife are targeted by a group of hired assassins who proceed to kill her and paralyze Grey from the neck down. Grieving and suicidal, a tech mogul offers to implant him with a special chip which will give him the ability to walk again. Shortly after the procedure, Grey finds that not only is he able to walk again, but the implants talks to him and can also, with his permission, take control of his body, turning him into a near unstoppable fighting machine. 

With this new found help, Grey goes about the task of tracking down and taking revenge on the people who killed his wife. 

Fairly simple premise with a more than competent execution. Leigh Whannell not only writes but takes the directing chair in this one. With "Upgrade" he manages to merge the genres of Cyberpunk, Body Horror and Revenge Movie (all of which I am a fan of) in a manner that may appeal to the average movie-goer but without toning things down too much. There's darkness and tragedy of course but not so much that it becomes pretentious or loses its entertainment value. 

Yeah it has a tendency to overdo it on the comedy (something that's kind of common in Leigh Whannell's work) and there are one or two holes needing plastered over, but it's well directed, shot nicely (especially in the fight scenes) and the sci-fi set design is quite pretty to look at. It is a bit baby's first cyberpunk but there's nothing overly wrong with that. Just know going in that you aren't about to see that long sought after "Neuromancer" adaptation. 

For gore fans, the violence is bloody and over the top, with one or two genuinely shocking moments and a refreshing lack of CG. As is standard it has that Saw-esque twist at the end which probably raises a few more questions on its own but it works overall. 

Overall Quality Rating - 4/5

I genuinely enjoyed this one and it made me interested to see Leigh's recent take on "The Invisible Man", again for Blumhouse. It's a simple movie with a simple idea and that's usually what I like. I'd even go as far as to say that it's probably the sort of movie that my favourite director John Carpenter may have made back in his heyday of the 80s. Flawed, but a genuine treat.

Idiot Rating - 2/5

There are some moments where the implant takes over Grey's body to take down multiple opponents with ease as he mugs in utter shock and amazement that may clash with the overall dark tone of the movie, but nonetheless gain a chuckle or two from me. 

Anyways, that's all for now.

I'm DeadEye and I hope you rot in Hell.  

 

  

Underwater (2020) Review - SPOILERS

I only just watched this the night before writing this and given the film's main antagonist (if you could even call him that) I felt I had to comment.

I am what you would consider a medium sized fan of H.P Lovecraft's 'Cthulhu Mythos'. I've read a fair few of the most famous stories; 'Call of Cthulhu' of course, a titan of 20th century horror literature; 'The Dunwich Horror', not too far behind CoC in it's inimitable status (and hopefully to be adapted by Richard Stanley soon); 'Dagon', the quintessential Lovecraft tale; and of course 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth', perhaps the most adapted and imitated of Lovecraft's stories, at one point even made into the video game 'Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth', a game so nerve wracking I've yet to pick it up again since I was chased through a hotel by gangs of hammer wielding, bug-eyed fish men with only book cases to defend myself with. 

Video evidence of the reason AR-15s with chainsaw attachments should be considered a human right. 

I heard of the film 'Underwater' starring Kristen Stewart a while ago and despite my love for horror in isolated spaces (John Carpenter's The Thing, Alien, Event Horizon, Prince of Darkness) my interest in this was pretty flaccid. I'd already gone through the derivative 'Life' starring Jake Gyllenhaal a little while before and with a similarly banal title like 'Underwater' I expected little of anything different. 

Seriously though, what is it movies nowadays with boring, unimaginative titles? 'Life', 'Spy', 'Underwater'. Yes, the film is set underwater, very good. It's like if 'Dead Calm' called itself 'Boat' Have we actually gotten to the point where we have to make use of generic, monosyllabic titles to describe our thinly veiled rehashes of older movies? I imagine in the future we'll be going to see 'Ubiquitous Marvel Film #3467' in our grey jump suits, shoveling down mouthfuls of energy depleting government issue gruel. Mark my words, this is the first step towards NPC cinema. 

....

So anyways I decided to rent the film from Amazon Prime and it's because I happened to find out who the main threat of the film was and no it wasn't Kristen Stewart's pronouns.

It's SIR to you, shitlord.

As you've no doubt gleaned from my second paragraph - the film's antagonist is Cthulhu. Yes, I'm not kidding. Not something that looks sort of like Cthulhu or some homage, it's actually Cthulhu. And he looks good. Clearly he's been working out, what with the lockdown and all. But try to imagine this for a second, because I know it will be hard for you.

Imagine making a movie with Cthulhu; Heavy C, Grand Master Octo-Dragon Man, Mr Insane in the Cosmic Membrane Nightmare Tentacles himself... and doing almost nothing with him.

I know, it's incomprehensible to you. For once we have a mainstream movie that portrays Cthulhu as anything more than an ironic punchline for literature-bereft hipster nerds and they do pretty much nothing with him. He's just there. He roars a little. That's about it. And before anyone gives me shit for being annoyed that Cthulhu didn't snap up T.J Miller and eat him like a chocolate bar (although that would have increased the film's quality exponentially) that's not my problem. I find it more problematic that Kristen Stewart's character was able to look upon the Kraken of Dreams without her brain melting and oozing out of her pale skinny ass like the slugs from 'Dreamcatcher'. Yeah, remember that movie? Well I fucking referenced it. How about that, huh? 

*Fart. Plop*

As it happens her ass is probably the most appealing thing about this movie. It starts off with Kristen Stewart's character, Norah, delivering a morose narration about how there's a comfort in cynicism and how her career as an Annie Lennox tribute act never really took off. Shortly afterward the underwater research and drilling facility she's in (what in fact they are researching and drilling for is never brought up) starts to fall apart due to what initially appears to be an underwater earthquake. SPOILER: They soon realize that they busted in on Cthulhu having a wank and now he mad AF.  

So what's the problem? Sounds like your kind of movie, GLENN. Why you gotta be so picky, HUH? What did you do with my daughter's body, MONSTER?

All valid questions. My problem is mostly that, like 'Life', it's a generic horror film that's derivative of the aforementioned 'Alien' and 'Event Horizon' type films that had their own ideas and actually made use of them in some memorable way. Not only that, in this generic horror film, they decided to use one of the towering horror icons of the 20th century and then proceed to not use him in any way shape or form. It goes through the motions. They walk around in the dark, get chased by Deep Ones (basically Fish-Apes), T.J Miller says something ironic while playing with his stuffed rabbit toy.... Wait, why did he have that? What was that about? Nobody says anything about it. It's never explained. Was it just there to make his character more quirky? At least Nicolas Cage in 'Con Air' had a reason. 

  
Point is there's nothing original here and given that they have no ideas that relate in any way to the Cthulhu Mythos, it makes me think that the writers are cursorily aware of Cthulhu but have no real idea as to what he actually is or what he does. Personally I was hoping for scenes where Norah's friends and colleagues slowly start going insane, engaging in ritual behaviour and start becoming Cthulhu worshipers, carving weird symbols into their skin and sexually assaulting each other in pools of briny slime. That would have been cool. A Cthulhu cult in a vaguely sci-fi underwater setting.

But we didn't get that. We got a rehash of a hundred other modern horror flicks that just happens to have Squid-head Schwarzenegger in it. Eventually I just resigned myself to the fact that I wasn't going to get what I wanted and started waiting for the moment Norah got Cthulhu cancelled for something mildly racist he said about Shoggoths around 10,000 years ago. 

Didn't even get that either. Just another needless, dreary narration.

Overall Quality Rating - 2.5/5

Whilst the film never truly makes proper use of the idea of humans stumbling upon Cthulhu in the process of vague corporate bullshit, its direction is solid and it does manage to create an isolated and claustrophobic atmosphere with the environments and cinematography. This is probably helped by the fact that I have a fear of drowning and quite frankly FUCK the deep sea. 

Look at that. That's not CGI, that's fucking real. There ought to be a fucking law. Yet further argument that the 2nd Amendment should be expanded to include amphibious tanks and underwater adaptable mini-nukes. 

Aside from that your characters are largely unmemorable and Stewart continues her dead eyed acting technique from the 'Twilight' films. T.J Miller is the Ryan Reynolds of the crew, providing comic relief and Jessica Henwick (Colleen Wing in 'Iron Fist', and I'm sure she regrets that every day) does some decent work here and provides some eye-candy for my East-Asian fetishizing peepers. 

Idiot Rating - 1/5

Unfortunately I can't even recommend this for the sake of unintentional hilarity. The film takes itself uber-seriously beyond T.J Miller's quips and little in the way of ridiculous events occurs. Look elsewhere. 

Ultimately what this film sorely needed was Sam Neil screaming at things. 

I'm DeadEye, and your daughter's body tasted delicious. 
    

Triple Horror Feature Round Up - Summer Camp, An American Haunting, In the Tall Grass

I can't go to the shops. People are tearing down statues and looting stores to bring about the utopia where slavery, racism and local enterprise no longer exist, you can't walk your dog in the country without a drone-copter asking for your Walking in the Middle of Fucking Nowhere Loicense, corporations are lecturing me about black lives mattering as they underpay their third world labour and my government is telling me to "STAY ALERT" in case I'm walking down the street and get mugged by a microbe.

In short, everything is shit. 

So what better way to purge ourselves of the horrors of the modern world than by bathing in the horrors of modern cinema? Since everything's either closed, on fire or some combination of the two, I decided to watch a few horror films on Netflix and Amazon Prime before that is suddenly declared racist. 

In the mean time I'd like to introduce a new system of reviewing that I will be implementing from now on. Normally I comment on a film's overall quality. Well now not only will I do that, I will also be giving each film what I like to call an "Idiot Rating".

It's simple. Sometimes bad movies have entertaining moments, usually of an unintentionally hilarious variety. These are what I and my friends like to refer to as "Idiot Moments"; and movies that have a high level of such moments we refer to as "Idiot Movies."

So at the end of each review I will give an overall quality rating from 1 to 5. I will also be laying down an "Idiot Rating". Whilst I strongly suspect that mostly movies with low overall quality scores will have a high Idiot Score, I believe it is entirely possible to have a film with a high overall quality score and a high idiot rating (e.g 'Evil Dead 2', 'Face/Off', Anything with Nicolas Cage, etc).  

So let's get on with it.



Summer Camp - Alberto Marini (2015)

I remember when zombies were everywhere. Not the slow-moving, satirically minded George Romero zombies. The 28 Days Later style rage zombies that would sprint at you like Kenyan Olympians and slap you to death like a drunken Glasgow slag. Romero zombies were for pussies, my friend. None of this ruminating on the human condition or societal issues like the raycistism or the consoomertism. Our rage zombies will eat your face off, shit your face into your face and then make you shit your own face. That's how unremittingly bad-ass and scary as fuck newfangled zombies are. They were everywhere and they were coming for your balls. 

So it's somewhat surprising that this little gem flew under my radar; and by gem I mean that if it were possible to literally laugh my tits off then I would have done it multiple times over the course of this film. 

Will, Christy, Michelle and Antonio are a group of young American camp counselors who are working at a summer camp in Spain. Whilst spending the night in the old mansion where the camp is located they find themselves having to deal with a mysterious rage type virus that begins to infect them one by one. 

Simple enough concept, and it's produced by Jaume Balaguero; well known for directing the '[REC]' series of found footage zombie films. Plus there's a bit of a twist, as unlike other zombie films the virus runs its course and wears off rather quickly, leaving the victim confused but otherwise unharmed and with no knowledge of their prior actions. Interesting enough idea. One could arguably envision a sequence of events similar to John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. Each character becomes suspicious of one another, not knowing how they're being infected, when they could be infected or indeed who is infected at any given time before it's too late.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) that's not what happens. Instead of taking advantage of the unique nature of the virus to create suspense and mystery, it results in absolute hilarity. The film plays out more like a comedy, with characters often sneaking up on and severely wounding others in ridiculous ways whilst under the impression that they are still infected. From the moment Will kills Antonio in self defense and the girls flee, having branded Will a murderer, the film is a complete farce. Everything just seems to go wrong in the funniest way possible. The amount of times Will is hurt in the process of trying to protect the girls (often by the girls) almost reaches running gag territory.

Press F

There's one scene where Michelle throws her mobile phone as it starts ringing in order to lure a now zombified Will away. Unbeknownst to her, Christy is also hiding nearby and the phone lands directly next to her, leading Will in her direction. And the ending... good lord almighty the ending is classic. If this film were a comedy I would actually be praising it for it's superb set-up for the final fuck you punchline. 

The thing is the film seems to take itself entirely seriously despite all this. Which only makes it funnier.

Overall Quality Rating - 2.5/5

Is it a complete disaster? No. The setting is quite cool, the production value is high and the actors do a pretty decent job beyond snarling like idiots. The characters are likable enough, although Will is really the only one who inspires true sympathy throughout the film. Having said that, it fails to do anything truly unique with the idea of the virus and its comedic nature, whether intentional or not, scuppers its chances of satisfying horror fans or creating a suspenseful atmosphere.

Idiot Rating - 3.5/5

There's some golden moments in this film. It plays out like an episode of Fawlty Towers where Basil Fawlty is replaced with rage zombies. Misunderstandings, hilarious zombie roars and slapstick violence abound, making this a film that I would probably watch again with friends round for a laugh. Recommended as such. 


An American Haunting - Courtney Solomon (2005)

Let's all be perfectly honest with ourselves: Haunted House movies are all the fucking same. Every last one of them. I'm not saying there aren't any good ones or that some don't have any unique elements. But when you get down to the basics, they're the fucking same. Middle class white family moves into new home, things are amiss, stuff moves by itself, the youngest kid starts making creepy drawings of entire families being massacred, the walls bleed, sometimes the dog dies and the father slowly goes insane before chasing everyone around with an axe. Basically "The Amityville Horror". 

BART, YOU WANNA SEE MY BRAND NEW HOBO BEARD AND WOOD AXE!?

And there's a lot of offenders out there; 'Insidious', 'The Conjuring', 'Sinister' - at this point there's only two ways to show me a haunted house film and not have me totally flaccid in seconds: 1. That movie's name is 'The Shining' or 2. It's a 100% full on Idiot Movie. In terms of the latter, 'An American Haunting' almost fits the bill. 

The film begins with a teenage girl running through the woods in terror, presumably to try and escape the over the top and frankly hysterical orchestral music that booms out at us from the get go. Upon awaking screaming from her dream her mother calms her down, retreats back into her study and takes a swig out of a bottle of Absolut Vodka; and I have to say, that has to be one of the finest examples of product placement I have ever seen. 

"This woman has an alcohol problem brought on by her daughter's violent nightmares and behavioural problems. Buy Absolut Vodka."

So upon sitting back down at her desk the mother pulls out an old note written by a teacher from over a hundred years ago... for some reason, and begins to read, sending us back in time to the 19th century. After a saccharine introduction to the Bell family, particularly the daughter of the family, Betsy, we're treated to a church court case where John Bell Sr (played by Donald Sutherland) is found guilty of Usury in a case against a local harridan by the name of Kathe Batts. His punishment is not enough for Batts however as she swears revenge on him. Afterwards the Bell family suffer some of the funniest poltergeist activity ever committed to film, most of it focused on Betsy.

The film is based on a novel which itself is based on the "Bell Witch" legend. Much like 'Summer Camp', it takes itself fairly seriously. It pulls off a fairly convincing 18th century setting and the performances are decent, mostly that of veteran actors Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek. But again, much like 'Summer Camp', unintentional comedy rears its head. The film switches jarringly from tacky period gothic drama to slapstick Sam Raimi-esque comedy horror. In fact, when I say Sam Raimi I mean I am almost convinced that they paid Sam Raimi to film the poltergeist scenes and just didn't bother to tell anyone.

        
There is literally a moment in the film where we watch a POV shot from the entity fly around the house manically and then shoot across the land 'Evil Dead' style with a Danny Elfman rip-off soundtrack being sledgehammered into your ear drums throughout the whole sequence. Between the period setting and utterly deranged horror scenes on display in this film it seems to owe more to 'Drag Me To Hell' than it does Hammer Horror, only without the sense of humour to back up either conceit. At any point where this film manages to build up an atmosphere, it shits the bed and treats us to Betsy suddenly sitting up and screaming directly into the camera for full on clown horror effect.  

As for the story itself, for the fact that the story is based on the Bell Witch legend we end up with a hell of a lot of Sam Raimi rip-off scenes and flat zero anything to do with witches. Other than of course Kathe Batts who, as it turns out, has fuck all to do with anything. The framing device (the Absolut Vodka loving mother from the start of the film) adds nothing to the story other than to provide a "chilling" moment of realization about her daughter which honestly comes off tacked on and a leap of logic for the character.  

Let's not forget the frequent fake outs where we're led to believe we're watching an actual event only to find out, nope, it's a dream. This makes the latter act of the film not only confusing, but boring to watch. 

Overall Quality Rating - 1.5/5

I'll give it the extra .5 for it being an After Dark film that didn't look like complete arse in terms of its setting and for having Sutherland and Spacek, but generally this was weak. The dialogue ranges from banal to vomit inducing and the story starts off mediocre and ends up confusing. Run time is also extended by a useless framing device.

Idiot Rating - 4/5

Where this film fails in overall quality it largely makes up for it in pure idiot moments. The amount of ridiculous slapstick poltergeist activity in the this film would make Bruce Campbell present his chin with pride. For haunted house silliness, recommended. 


In The Tall Grass - Vincenzo Natali (2019)

I personally enjoy Stephen King's work, as relatively little of it as I've read. I even enjoy the bad stuff, like 'Cell', 'The Mangler' or the things he tweets on any given day. The guy writes so much that he's just as likely to shit out a turd as he is to paint a masterpiece. Adding the 'Netflix Original' stamp to all that - usually a death knell in and of itself - you have a high potential for disaster. Thankfully this is not so with 'In the Tall Grass'.

This is probably largely to do with writer/director Vincenzo Natali, director of the cult classic 90s sci-fi horror film 'Cube' (and if you haven't watched 'Cube', go watch it, it's awesome). The guy brings a visual and atmospheric flair to something which could have easily become another dull, dreary and muted looking Netflix Original movie. 

Based on a novella by King and his son Joe Hill, it starts out following Becky and Cal, a brother and sister on their way to San Diego. They stop off near a large field of tall grass, only to hear a small boy crying for help within. When they step inside to help they find themselves not only unable to find each other, but their way out as well.

Starting off somewhat calm and easy going it doesn't take long for the tension to wrack up. If I have one criticism with the film overall it's that Patrick Wilson's character, Ross, sends up red flags from the moment he shows up. Though that might have less to do with the way the film portrays him at first and more to do with my familiarity with King stories. When I saw him I knew he was this movie's Jack Torrence. But despite the King cliche that he is I can't say I didn't enjoy watching him. Besides, he's basically doing what he did in 'Insidious Chapter 2' (my favourite of the 'Insidious' series) so automatically I was hooked. 

As the film goes on we're thrown a series of weird and often horrific ideas, explaining enough to keep you gripped whilst at the same time keeping much in the dark. In short, it's damn decent horror. Not a masterpiece by any stretch, but definitely the best you'll get hunting among the rotten tall grass that is Netflix's original content. 

Overall Quality Rating - 4/5

Well directed, some fine horror imagery if occasionally marred by some horrible looking green screen night time sky backgrounds (pretty standard for movies nowadays); if you're looking for some decent horror and you happen to have a Netflix account, go for it. You can do far worse.

Idiot Rating - 2/5

There isn't much in the way of Idiot Moments in this film but I'd be remiss to not give a score for Patrick Wilson Jack-Torrence-ing up the proceedings and reminding you that, yes, this is in fact a Stephen King story and yes, he will be inserting a career driven, borderline abusive religious Dad in there whether you like it or not. And for my sins, I do like it. 


So, two recommended for their idiocy, one recommended for quality. Overall a decent line up. As things are I wish you all good health and economic prosperity. We'll get through this.

Also China lied and people died.  

Birds of Prey (And the Subtitle I Refuse to Type) Review - SPOILERS

It is now 2020 and many of us are probably now looking back on the things we did in 2019 and wondering what might have been if we had just done that one thing differently. Maybe you shouldn't have quit that job, maybe you shouldn't have married that woman, maybe you shouldn't have left your wallet next to the shallow grave where they eventually found her bod....

*Ahem* 

So anyways it's not just New Years Resolutions here, people, it's New Years Regrets; and I sit here the very definition of such.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, out of the two DC movies to be released these past few months; I chose to see Birds of Prey. 

Yup, drink that in. After all the rave reviews and scathing indictments by YouTube commentators and woke critics respectively; after warnings of mass shootings and incel uprisings; after all the hype surrounding this one particular film... I ended up not seeing "Joker" in the theaters, and instead opted for Deadpool's retarded feminist sister. And make no mistake, that's what this is. DC's attempt at their own Deadpool. And, imagine my shock, it doesn't doesn't turn out quite as well.

Gee, DC, I'm starting to see a pattern. Aren't you? 

So the story begins with Harley Quinn - ex-therapist, partner in crime and lover to the Joker - relaying her past to us through a cutesy animated segment narrated with her oh so quirky and thick Noo Yoik accent and if you find that shit annoying, get fucking used to it. It continues incessantly throughout the entire film. 

So Joker, rather uncharacteristically, makes a sane decision and kicks her to the kerb (presumably for not being the Harley Quinn in the Animated Series) and so she reacts by ramming a conveniently placed tanker filled with petrol into the ACE Chemicals factory where she and the Joker consummated their relationship by quite literally becoming pale imitations of the characters they're based on. 

TITLE CARD: 4 Minutes Earlier - Detective Renee Montoya investigates the multiple slaying of a group of gangsters (which will later turn out to be the work of another comic book character, "Huntress", also effectively bastardised by this film) and expertly and bravely fends off the brutal mansplaining inflicted upon her by her partner. You go girl! That's got to be the worst thing that's ever happened to a latino lesbian in Gothman City and you handled it with aplomb. 

I mean she did get kidnapped by a love-sick Two-Face in the comics but whatever.

Meanwhile Roman Sidonus - AKA Black Mask - (played by Euan McGregor and yes, I'll cool it with the parenthesis from now on) is after some diamond in order to fund his vague City dominating gangster bullshit and ends up hiring a pre-vigilante days Dinah Lance - AKA Black Canary - who looks nothing like she does in the comics and I'm guessing that's the case because they already had a blonde white woman in the film and Hollywood nowadays does casting by picking out colors in a Dulux chart. 

I mean we wouldn't want Neo-Nazis to accidentally like our movie or anything.

If it sounds like I'm having trouble explaining the plot to you, it's probably because I am. Throughout most of its first hour the film jumps back and forth in a non-linear style that really doesn't lend anything to the film other than confusion. Yes, I know it's because its being narrated by Harley and she's a scatterbrained lunatic, I get that; but it isn't helped when pretty much all the character's backgrounds are explained in this overly rushed and spoon fed fashion.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I mean between the female writer, female director and generally female cast, it figures that this film would take something relatively simple and make it needlessly complicated. 

Thank you, thank you. So a black woman and a Jew walk into a Chinese takeaway....

Okay, I'm gonna try and explain this. Please bear with me. 

Roman Sidonus, the villain of the film, wants a diamond that used to belong to a crime family known as the Bertinellis (Huntress's family, who are dead). He sends Black Canary off to get the diamond but it is pickpocketed from her by a 12 year old Cassandra Cane (one of the Batgirls from the comics) and then promptly swallowed, foreshadowing jokes about shitting and laxatives from here on out. Harley, just as she's about to be killed by Sidonus, claims she can find the diamond because she's "good at finding things". Roman, for some reason, decides to take her up on this offer. This results in Harley storming the police station where Cane is with a grenade launcher filled with paint, overpowering multiple officers in the process. When she finally finds Cane (locked away in a cell next to a bunch of hardened criminals because that's Gotham for you) she accidentally releases all the other prisoners who, instead of attempting to escape, try to beat up Harley for no adequately explained reason.

(There, that wasn't so hard. And I managed to get rid of all those extra parenthesis I had lying around.) 

Now I personally was never under the impression that Harley was all that great a fighter. I don't know what the new comics are making her out to be but, honestly, fuck the new comics. The only Harley that exists to me is the version in the Animated Series created by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm; the Harley that was actually a funny, charmingly insane and often tragic character that actually had an interesting relationship with the Joker. Here they've made her into a mess, a parody of 90s Grrl Power chique with more STDs than charm, devoid of any and all sympathetic traits. 

Now this is a woman I would sleep next to with one eye open 
and a gun under my pillow.

They can't even seem to get her fighting prowess down. One minute she's taking on the Gotham PD single handed, the next she's having trouble with a drunk five foot tall latino dyke with no weapons. And don't get me started on Gotham PD here. This is Gotham fucking City. Every officer here should be decked out to the tits in body armour, grenades, firearms and SPARE fucking firearms. Hell, they should each have their own mini-nuke. And even if they don't, it's Harley fucking Quinn! You mean to tell me you can take a black kid with a flick knife on a crowded subway with a .357 bullet at mid-range but you can't take down a 90Ib white woman in booty shorts and a midriff top, armed with nothing but a grenade launcher that fires confetti, AT CLOSE RANGE? 

I have problems with all the fight scenes in this movie but we'll get to that in a moment. 

The villain, Roman Sidonis, is portrayed as the oft warned about 'manbaby', spoilt beyond belief and prone to flying off the handle at even the perception of having not gotten his way. In other words, it's the "Last Jedi" method of male villain writing. As a result he isn't anywhere near as intimidating as he should be, even as he orders his right hand man Mr Zasz (one of the only things I feel this film got right) to slice people's faces off while their still alive.

Victor Zasz; a role model to men everywhere.

The aforementioned 'mansplaining' in the film was actually copped to by Euan McGregor, who in an interview promoting the film said:

“What interested me with ‘Birds of Prey’ is that it’s a feminist film. It is very finely written. There is in the script a real look on misogyny, and I think we need that. We need to be more aware of how we behave with the opposite sex. We need to be taught to change.”

Maybe you do Faux Bi Wan, but the way I deal with women is perfectly appropriate. And how do I deal with them, you may ask? Simple: With great emotional distance. But please, carry on:

“Misogynists in movies are often extreme: They rape, they beat women… and it is legitimate to represent people like that, because they exist and they are obviously the worst. But in the ‘Birds of Prey’ dialogues, there is always a hint of everyday misogyny, of those things you say as a man you do not even realize.”

Euan, you misunderstand. I am perfectly aware of the things I say around women. If you are not then it is you who needs to reevaluate your communication skills. I empathise though. Women are scary, what with the cooties and the turning into a werewolf once a month and whatnot. But given time you will soon see them as I do: The thing that occasionally comes up and talks to you and attempts to hug you while you're trying to write a review of a bad movie. 

“(The film takes on) mansplaining… and it’s in the script in a very subtle way. I found that brilliant.”

You know what Euan, I actually agree. It was subtle. In fact it was probably the most subtle thing about this movie. Not that I am bregrudging what is essentially a Harley Quinn movie (and really, that's what it should have been, just that) for not being subtle. That would be stupid. What I do bregrudge it for is being a largely incomprehensible, hamfisted feminist pander-flick that never really manages to establish any connection between its female lead characters beyond the superficial "I got boobs, so do you, grrl power" one. 

By the time the end of the film rolls around and Sidonus lays siege to Harley and Joker's old pad with his army of incels, the girls finding themselves backed into a corner, it honestly feels like they've all been in separate movies for an hour an a half. Especially Huntress, whose running gag throughout the film is that she calls herself Huntress but everyone else calls her Crossbow Killer and she gets annoyed at this. Way to rip of "Guardians of the Galaxy", movie. Huntress has a fairly interesting if not generic revenge driven back story but here they turn her into a clown for lolzorz. Nick Fury Syndrome strikes again

Never Forget

After a series of annoying fight scenes (again, I'll get to it later), Roman Sidonus is blown up with a grenade in a wet fart of a villain death. In the denouement we see the girls hanging out at a local burger joint, high fiving and chatting away like they've been friends for ages. Excuse me, movie, but you didn't earn this. It really says something when the end of "The Expendables" had Dolph Lundgren's character hanging out and drinking beers with the guys after he got high on drugs, fucked up a misson, got kicked out of the crew and then defected to a bunch of enemy mercs to try and kill his old friends, and that was STILL more realistic than this shit. 

I think the message is supposed to be that women just get along or something. Sisterhood and all that. But this leads me to the final point of this already overlong review. Sitting comfortably? 

Good.

So it took me a little while to realize what it was that really bothered me about the fight scenes in these kinds of movies. It's not that they're unrealistic. It's a movie. Of course it's unrealistic. The problem is that feminist writers don't understand film violence. Specifically they don't understand male film violence. 

Look at Bruce Willis in "Die Hard". And I mean really look hard at him while he's fighting. Is he enjoying himself?

NO.

Jackie Chan. What's he doing throughout most of the excellent fight scenes he himself often choreographs? 

RUNNING AWAY.

John McClane is not enjoying himself. He's having a shitty time. Even as he bombards the villain with Yippi Kay Yays to keep his spirits up and mock his opponent, he's still bleeding out his feet. The bruises and blood and sweat are what makes a fight scene powerful. The fact that McClane is hurting makes it more believable, even as he drives a car off a ramp into a chopper. You can even see this in the recent fantastic Daredevil fight scenes. 

With every hit you can see he's hurting. So when he finally beats them all and saves the kid it feels like he earned it. And this is the problem I have with the kinds of action scenes I see in pander fests like "Birds of Prey". None of them ever seem like they're hurting. They all just get up and flip around like its nothing. 

This is because they don't understand: People don't enjoy violence as such, they enjoy watching people overcome adversity. 

"But Glenn!" I hear you cry into your waifu body pillow, "'Birds of Prey' is a comedy film! It's not the same as 'Die Hard' or 'Daredevil'!" Okay, true. But the same rules apply. The violence is made funnier in a comedy film by the reaction, just as its made more believable and powerful in other films. The Three Stooges show this. Hell, HOME ALONE shows this. 
But here you just end up with a bunch of people flailing around with blood splatter and bone cracking and ultimately nothing is gained. Nothing is earned and you're left sitting there wondering where your 10 bucks went; why Renee Montoya, a GCPD detective, is somehow on the same fighting level as someone like Huntress or Black Canary; and why, after all the explosions, gun battles and assorted violence that's been going down over the course of the day has BATMAN NOT SHOWED UP. 

Overall everything about this film is unearned, forced, compressed, muddled and generally a chore to watch. The characters display no chemistry or connection to one another and the villain is a Last Jedi style manbaby strawman for the writer to live her power fantasy through alongside all of the dumb as fuck "MEN BAD" moments sprinkled throughout. Avoid this film at all costs.

    
Also watch "The Villainess". It's way better.