Connect with us

Entertainment and Sports

Two horror flicks that should never have been made

Published

on

Two horror flicks that should never have been made

When I was younger, I read Stephen King’s “It.” That book is a PTSD diagnosis in paperback. I have never forgotten certain lines in it, like “the baby farted” when King described a particularly evil teenage psychopath recalling suffocating his infant brother. The book is as dark and unrelenting as Pennywise.

My sister-in-law read it about the same time I did, and to this day, if I say to her “we all float down here,” she’ll slap me across the face and not speak to me for months. “It” is one of those books that the world could have done without, and Stephen King could have done without writing.

Michael O’Sullivan of the Washington Post called the movie “a waking nightmare, curated from a catalogue of horror-movie tropes.” He missed mentioning that most of the horror-movie tropes in the last 30 years were invented from the minds of people who read “It” in 1986.

Call it a symphony of orchestral meta-horror, an elaborate waking nightmare in which you, as the dreamer, are constantly reminded of what the film is trying to do, and yet are powerless to stop it.

“It” is a psychotically evil force or terror, and without regard to how technically well-done it is as a movie (versus the Tim Curry made-for-TV version), I think we could all have gone on with life if it had never been made.

The second film of the “shouldn’t have made” genre is Climate Change Pope Al’s “An Inconvenient Sequel.” This is a movie, which before it was released, garnered enough negative reviews from people who had never seen it, that if there were a poll done before it was made, no filmmaker in his right mind would attempt it. But they didn’t make this film to be commercially successful.

Like “It,” a nightmare on Gore Street was made as a catharsis of the soul, to rid it of evil once and for all. Once made, the existence of this religious talisman divided the audience like a knife.

Of the 2,645 IMDb users who rated the film as of August,2 over 38 percent gave the film a 1 out of 10. Of those same 2,645 IMDb users, just under 34 percent gave the film a 10 out of 10. In short: 72 percent of people who rated the movie gave it an extreme score, a 1 or a 10.

(FiveThirtyEight)

The reception to “An Inconvenient Sequel” lays on three major divides: (1) critics vs. audiences, (2) people who saw the movie vs. those who did not, and (3) men vs. women. It’s frankly impressive for a single film to stand astride so many fault lines. But if you’re a casual moviegoer quickly checking IMDb to see if “An Inconvenient Sequel” is worth checking out, you wouldn’t know any of that. You’d think it was just a dumpy movie — the “Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo” of climate documentaries.

The TL;DR version:

  • Critics (who tend to be liberal artsy journalists) loved it. Commonfolk not so much.
  • 62% of IMDB reviews were already done before the film was widely released on Aug. 4. “It’s hard to believe that each and every one of those pre-release reviews is bona fide, especially on a politicized film like this.”
  • Women liked it, men not so much

Yes, folks, “An Inconvenient Sequel” blew the curve for movie ratings, and some people think that’s unfair. But this wasn’t really a documentary as much as a it was a religious film. It would be like Mel Gibson making “The Passion of the Christ: Part 2”: Either you believe it or you don’t.

Nobody would make a movie showing 90 minutes of an empty tomb. To those who are not fully convinced that every global disaster, storm and the death of the bees is the result of cow flatulence and motorcycle exhaust, Gore’s sequel has all the attraction of a morgue.

“It” should not have been made for the same reason as “An Inconvenient Sequel.” Nobody who sees either movie could possibly leave the theater with a smile, and both movies should come with a warning: “May cause nightmares.”

No thanks.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment and Sports

Jack Reacher reboot: Smaller screen, bigger actor

Published

on

Jack Reacher reboot Smaller screen bigger actor

Tom Cruise is one of the biggest actors in the world when it comes to popularity and recognition. He’s also one of the shortest leading men in Hollywood, stretching to hit 5’7″.

His two-movie portrayal of Jack Reacher was enjoyed by many fans, including the book series’ writer, but there was something missing – about 10 inches. In the books, Reacher was described as 6’5″ with hands the size of dinner plates.

There will be no more Jack Reacher movies. There will be a new actor to play the role. The next version of the drifting former major in the military police will come to us through the small screen, almost certainly as a streaming show on Netflix or Amazon.

“Cruise, for all his talent, didn’t have that physicality,” series creator Lee Child told BBC.

So, who could replace Cruise?

The next Jack Reacher

We know Reacher’s character is tall intimidating. He is physically fit and can handle himself well in most fights.

Age isn’t much of a factor. He left the military at age 36, so they have a lot of flexibility depending on which stage they want the story to be picked up.

He’s American, Caucasian, and generally jovial except when he’s kicking butt. He’s blond in the books, but that’s malleable.

So, here’s a list of people who fit the bill. Some of them are hard to imagine playing a television role, but it’s 2018. That’s much more common in the streaming age. A-list actors don’t consider television a downgrade the way they used to.

In order from my favorite to least favorite choice for the role…

  1. Vince Vaughn
  2. Adam Baldwin
  3. Liam Hemsworth
  4. Joe Manganiello
  5. Billy Campbell
  6. Armie Hammer
  7. John Corbett
  8. Ben Affleck

Anyone who balks at Vince Vaughn playing the tough guy as Jack Reacher hasn’t seen Brawl In Cell Block 99.

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Golden State Warriors to sell $100 monthly passes that don’t have a view of the court

Published

on

Golden State Warriors to sell 100 monthly passes that dont have a view of the court

Some people want to see a basketball game live. Others will have to be satisfied with a view of a television screen in a bar at Oracle Arena. To get that honor, fans will have to pay $100 a month for a pass.

If that seems crazy, consider this: There are 44,000 people on the Golden State Warriors’ season pass waiting list and they’re about to sell out their 300th consecutive home game.

Admittedly, the atmosphere at the stadium is wonderful. Feeling the floor rumble after a huge dunk is great. But dealing with parking, crowds, lines at the bathroom, and $13 cans of beer may not be worth the $100 per month. Then again, they expect to sell out these passes as well, so who knows?

I’m happy with my grocery store cans of beer, parking in my driveway, shorter lines to the restroom, and a big plasma screen for the game.

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Stan Lee’s 10 greatest comics

Published

on

Stan Lees 10 greatest comics

Stan Lee has died. While modern audiences probably know much more about the Marvel movies and televisions shows that dominate our viewing pleasures, it was his genius in creating so many beloved comic book characters decades ago that fuels Hollywood today.

Looper put out a video with his greatest comics. These subjective lists are usually fodder for debate, but I was so pleasantly surprised by their choices I decided to post it here. It may be the first time I agree with nearly everything in a video top 10 list. Fitting that it surrounds an icon like Lee.

From his quirky cameos in every Marvel movie to his down-to-earth perspectives present in every interview, there’s plenty to love about Stan Lee. But it was his comic book creations that have made a permanent mark on American culture.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report