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.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Democrats

Kamala Harris stutters through non-answer when asked about her Jussie Smollett Tweet

Published

on

Kamala Harris stutters through non-answer when asked about her Jussie Smollett Tweet

In one of the most cringeworthy moments of Senator Kamala Harris’s new presidential campaign, the California Democrat found herself hesitant and uncertain about her feelings towards Jussie Smollett’s apparent hate-crime hoax. This is in stark contrast to her bold and racially charged accusations of a “modern day lynching” allegedly perpetrated by two Nigerian actors at the request of Smollett himself.

Above, you can see her attempt to calm the situation and state that facts are still emerging about the case. Of course, this is three weeks after the alleged incident, which is strange since her response the moment the news broke seemed to express zero interest in waiting for facts to emerge.

“. is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.”

This is the latest minefield Democrats find themselves traversing after quickly reacting to false claims. It happened with the Covington Catholic School boys. It’s happened far too many times since President Trump ran for President in 2016.

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

http://noqreport.com/2019/02/18/anti-maga-hoax-epidemic/There’s a trend that’s been quietly, consistently rearing its ugly head against the President of the United States and his supporters since before the 2016 election. We’ve seen it among unhinged journalists, virtue-signaling celebrities, and Democratic politicians. We’ve seen it manifest in the ugliest form of hatred – the common hate-hoax – and it’s doing more to divide America than the source of the perpetrators’ anger.

They hate President Trump. They hate the people who got him elected. The hate the idea of making America great again because as much of the MAGA agenda comes to pass, they’re learning they’ve been wrong the whole time. I know first hand. I’ve been proven wrong myself.

It doesn’t take a skilled orator or ethical paragon to say, “I reacted too quickly before. I should have waited for all of the facts to come out before reacting emotionally.” Of course, doing so requires humility, which Kamala Harris apparently does not have.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

President Trump lowers himself to SNL’s level every time he gives them attention

Published

on

President Trump lowers himself to SNLs level every time he gives them attention

Many conservatives have been in the midst of a conundrum since the 2016 election. On one hand, there are things to like about President Trump’s agenda as he cuts bureaucracy, reduces our tax burden, and addresses certain foreign policy issues appropriately. On the other hand, he has the temperament of a high school student at times and seems reluctant to act like the President of the United States.

The latest example of his willingness to dive into the fray with unimportant but insulting entities is his ongoing war with SNL and NBC.

My advice to the President:

Seriously, Mr. President, please just ignore them. Yes, they insult you. Yes, they mock you. Yes, they hate you. But you’re doing them a favor when you pay so much attention to them just because they were able to prick below your paper-thin skin. Collusion? No. It’s comedy, and not very funny comedy at that. There’s nothing they can do to actually hurt you in the eyes of the American public because those who are still watching aren’t your friends anyway. Even if some of your allies are watching, it’s not like they’re saying to themselves, “Man, I liked Trump but now that I’ve seen Alex Baldwin’s latest skit, I’m changing my mind.”

This is below the President. It’s so far below the President that much lesser-known people who get made fun of by SNL have the common sense to either ignore it or play along with the gag. President Trump is one of the few people of power who actually takes SNL seriously enough to draw as much attention to them as possible. It’s counterproductive and will only make them want to attack more often.

How many people actually watched the skit before the President Tweeted it? Now, he’s chosen to make the skit go viral, emboldening Baldwin and the whole SNL crew into wanting to make fun of him even more. It’s one of the saddest displays of inappropriate attention being given to something so far below the White House it’s a wonder that he took the time to Tweet about it, let along watch it and get masses of others to watch it as well.

Every time he gives SNL this level of attention, all he does is reaffirm what his detractors already think while making his supporters scratch their head wondering why the most powerful man in the world is whining about a comedy sketch.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

This old Tweet by Jussie Smollett may have been prescient as a condemnation of his gullible supporters

Published

on

This old Tweet by Jussie Smollett may have been prescient as a condemnation of his gullible supporte

As the walls (and possibly law enforcement) continue to close in on actor Jussie Smollett following reports he hoaxed the world by pretending to be attacked by Trump supporters, a Tweet from 2016 is quite interesting.

In today’s context, this quote would demonize those who believed Smollett’s suspicious claims without even considering the possibility they could be made up. It’s one thing to think Trump supporters are racist. It’s another to take this belief and use it as intellectual cover to blind one to obvious truths. Smollett seems to be calling out the very people who have supported him.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report