Crawl Review

Despite being "apex predators," you know, top-of-the-food-chain animals, alligators don't get a lot of screen time in the movies. That honor is left to its more aggressive relative the crocodile, but even then, when's the last time you went to the multiplex, plucked down eightish bucks, sat down with your candy of choice, and chowed down while the reptile onscreen does the same? Off of the top of my head that honor goes to "Lake Placid," although there have been a handful of small or foreign (or worse... made-for-TV fare), but the last one to stick with me was the 1999 flick most fondly remembered for Betty White's potty mouth than satisfying monster action. But here we have "Crawl," a violent little picture that shies away from character development in favor of some surprisingly grisly kills. It's good stuff, if this is your kind of stuff.

I'm a pushover for stuff like this, low-rent thrillers where a big angry animal stalks a small band of characters. I can refuse the bad ones, like last year's "The Meg" and 2017's "Life," but here we have a satisfying amount of bloodshed and heroes we root for, or at least, don't root to be eaten.

Set in Florida, Haley (Kaya Scodelario), a wannabe swimming who is caught in a hurricane when her dad Dave (Barry Pepper) won't answer her calls. "Gotta make sure he's safe," she thinks. The house is empty, but the dog keeps barking at the crawlspace, so she investigates. Big mistake. She finds her dad down there, unconscious, in addition to a handful of alligators. They escape to the back protected by pipes that the gators can't get through, and well, that's about it. It's a simple premise, but it's built completely on your ability to accept that 1, there is a house in Florida with a crawlspace, and 2) that hollow metal tubes can deter hungry hungry alligators.

It's almost a clever mix of monster and disaster genres, I say "almost" because this is a creature feature first, with the hurricane part just an excuse to add more water. With a relatively small sub-14 million dollar budget, these stormy parts are the least effective when it comes to the special effects. You can tell that it's not real water that floods the area when the levee breaks, and that's a shame, because the alligators look great! A few shots look a bit cartoony, but the effects team really did a good job making the reptiles look simultaneously like something you'd actually see in a documentary, and only see in the movies.

It's tough to make a truly scary film; audiences are trained to listen to the sudden pause of music, or the camera angled slightly off of the character no doubt about to get bitten so the monster can jump into frame. But "Crawl" does away with most conventions- here, the gators just lunge out from the shadows of the dark crawlspace, or out from the murky water, or from around the corner, or from, well, you see my point. Sometimes the gator appears on the attack, but sometimes they're just wondering the environment, but it almost always without a traditional cue. The seldom set up to the attack left me on edge, a technique that reminded me of "Jaws." Of course the trailer gave away a kill (poor random secondary police character), as well as a handful of surprise "appearances" by the scaley antagonists, but there is a lot of creature action here that I never really minded.

There is a certain suspension of disbelief we allow for movies, but my gosh does little Haley takes a beating! Her her leg is bitten, then her arm, and then her arm again(!), and yet she's seen outswimming the gators! And don't get me started on Papa Davey here, because he's practically super-human! Early on he is seen using a belt and a wrench (or maybe was screwdriver, or was it pliers...) to keep the broken bone in his leg in-place (from an offscreen attack), but before you know it he's walking just fine, while carrying a dog no less! And because alligators hunt mostly by detecting movement of potential prey, the film asks us to accept that none of the gators smell the blood from all their open wounds. These creatures don't look like they're picky about their eating habits. I already touched upon a few unrealistic parts with the plot, but it's execution adds even more implausible moments that almost make "Crawl" a "so-bad-it's-good" picture. It's better than that, but barely.

I mentioned before that I was reminded fondly of the untouchable Jaws, but like all monster movies (the great, the good, the mediocre, and yes, even the bad), there will inevitably be sequels; I just hope that the they don't end up with the gators escaping "Sea World" ala "Jaws 3." Actually come to think of it, make it "GatorWorld" and I'm in. Just think what the collaboration will do for Florida's economy.

Shaft (2019) Review

What's to say about "Shaft," the 5th film in the franchise (and third named "Shaft," grumble grumble), except that someone high up at Warner Bros. Pictures thinks that it's just sexist, homophobic, racist, raunchy, and tacky jokes. Samuel L. Jackson (playing Shaft Jr. for the second time) just walks around, cooly swearing, cracking a lot of much of the aforesaid inane punchlines- at least he looks cool. He is about the only reason to see this, if you can get past his vulgarities, of which there are plenty. The catch, or crutch, this time is his son, Shaft III (Jessie Usher), who was abandoned by his pa at a young age (terrific plot for "Father's Day weekend"), finds himself needing his dad's help investigating the allegedly wrongful death of his friend. Oh and I forgot to mention that Shaft, the real Shaft, played by Richard Roundtree- that's three Shafts for the price of one!

This newest Shaft (Shaft Jr. Jr., or Baby Shaft, or Rugrat Shaft or...) is far from up-to-snuff of living up to Samuel's acting giftedness, who's presence on the screen is so weak you often forget he's even a main character (hey, I might not agree with what Samuel is saying, but I do love how he's saying it). But he is the voice of reason, arguing about how "wrong" the overall tone of the film is with Shaft Jr., and although he's ultimately right, by the end of the film sports an itchy trigger-finger, just like his dad. The only voice of reason in the entire flick becomes what he hates- what kind of message is that?? Even Shaft Jr.'s ex-wife Maya (Regina Hall) is a terrible person; oh sure, she pretends that he hates the ways of her previous husband, but literally, and I mean "literally," every other word she says is the "f" word (it'd make a good drinking game I suppose), and she can't help herself but find herself aroused by the "manliness" of Shaft Jr. (and Shaft Jr. doesn't waste any opportunity to remind her). Usually, characters so tawdry exists to counter another character with an opposing point of view. Problem is in "Shaft," crudeness wins by a landslide.

The plot is standard grade murky TV crime-thriller material, with double-crossing, false police reports, shootouts, all the usual suspects. But not only is the tone of the film particularly nasty, but none of the narrative is handled with grace, and most egregiously is how poor the action is handled. To be honest, all three Shafts are practically conscientious objectors here, aside from a handful of gunfights (I counted 2, though with the way this thing is paced, edited and filmed, I wouldn't be surprised if I missed one, or one was cut entirely but the plot forgot). Oh sure, they talk a big game (a racist, homophobic, sexist game) but most of the film is shockingly tasteless dialogue spewed from any of the leading actors or actresses as they drive from one stereotypical "Harlem" building to the next (you know the type, ones with drug-dealers). When we do get to any real action, all the actors move as if their shoes are nailed to the ground; they just stand there, bang bang bang. Bad guys dead. Girl paws over whichever Shaft is theirs (or used to be). How thrilling.

But the audience I saw this with, let me tell you, they laughed and reacted as if they had seen a completely different movie than me. And it was infectious- I found myself laughing with them, even though I disagree with what I was laughing along to. I wondered where my integrity had gone. What happened to my sense of humor? Does this ultimately warrant a recommendation? Well, only if you see it in a crowded theater, and easily succumb to peer pressure.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters Review

What a world we live in. There are two Godzilla series coexisting, one in Hollywood and one in his hometown, although neither series really got off to a good start. Oh sure, the 2014 USA adaptation, as well as the 2016 Japanese reboot, were welcome returns to the king of monsters, but the failed to do anything creative with the property. Yes yes I know, it's a blast to see a giant monster movie on the big screen (ask any "man-child"), but how many times can we justify swerving the camera off of creatures destroying buildings to disinteresting humans discussing the same thing? The same thing is how to destroy the monsters, of course, and although it's practically a tradition at this point (this is the 35th film in the franchise), one would think that someone at franchise owner Toho would say "hey, haven't audiences seen this before" and, you know, try something new?

But I'm getting off topic here- this isn't a review of the current state of Godzilla, but rather the newest iteration in the franchise. I'm not going to bother talking about the confusing name... actually I am. It's a stupid one, as it's almost identical to the American reedit of the first picture (which was "Godzilla, King of the Monsters!")- hell actually ignore my complaints about the title. What's the point? There are so many sequels, reboots, adaptations, and ripoffs that titling is always going to be a mess (though I'd say "Godzilla 2" would have worked just fine).

The plot this time is an overstuffed buffet of needless, bromidic characters who go over every obligatory beat (spoiler alert, the military wants to destroy Godzilla). That's fine, that's fine, I get it. It's a Godzilla movie; like the James Bond movies, audiences expect familiar scenes, plot-points and character types. But this narrative is just so cluttered, as if screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Zach Shields threw every underdeveloped idea into the script without ever asking "why." We have Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler), our primary protagonist, chasing after his daughter (Millie Bobby Brown) and his ex-wife Emma (Vera Farmiga), who uses a device called the "Orca" to communicate with Godzilla and his pals. But that's not all! We have a secret government organization called Monarch. We have the military throwing their hat into the ring by using the "Oxygen Destroyer," from the first film in the franchise. We have Godzilla becoming a nuclear bomb (straight from, well, off of the top of my head, "Godzilla vs. Destroyah?"). We have a divorced couple argue about what's best for their daughter. And there are courtroom scenes where politicians argue. Oh, there are also characters polluted by monster-prejudice. There is just too much going on here!

Back to Emma. Her plan is to awaken the various monsters in the world so they can "reset" the damage done by mankind and live "alongside them" (blah blah blah "the world originally belonged to these creatures" blah blah blah). It's an absolute bonker plot, but it's not an original one; I heard it first in the 1993's mockbuster "Carnosaur," only Emma here is less interesting a character than that film's Dr. Tiptree, played with unbridled intensity and grace by the great Diane Ladd. Whether Emma is an antagonist or misunderstood is never really explained or followed up on.

This Orca thing is the silliest of items, as it talks to the monsters by emitting frequencies only they can hear. Even a dummy like me knows that these frequencies can only be heard from so far away, yet creatures hundreds of feet tall have no trouble hearing them when the device is at human height. OK I'll buy that. It's a creature-feature after all. But then when they need to reach monsters across the globe, they just plug it into Fenway Stadium and use its speakers to make a long-distance call to Rodan and friends. How far do these frequencies travel? Why do I care? I just want to sit back and watch CGI behemoths (well, I'd prefer men in rubber suits) beat the snot out of each other- if a movie shows me that it is attempting to offer a scientific explanation, then I'm going to have to use my brain. I promised mine it would be on autopilot.

Other gears in the machine are just as rusty. It's revealed not too late into the picture that Emma doesn't want to kill the human race, only for titans to live in harmony with humans. Yet she has no problems when her associate Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) shoots up her lab and kills everyone but her and her daughter so they can go off and wake up the other creatures sleeping across the globe. There has to have been a more subtle way to get the device out of the lab- she works there! It's about the size of a bulky laptop- just slip it into a backpack and leave the building! I suppose a peaceful, nonchalant exit from the lab would have been less "cinematic." It's not like Alan is ever really explained to be "evil," he quips that she approached him about organizing the whole thing. One character calls him an "eco-terrorist," but I dunno, aside from killing some people during his introduction, he just sorta stands there. He has no villainous monologue, nothing that help me the viewer know he's bad, or supposed to be, unless I remember he shot a guy or two.

Here's another one! When, after they find Godzilla "healing" after getting beat-up mid-picture, they try and locate him underwater so they can fire a nuclear missile at him to accelerate his regen (he's empowered by nuclear radiation, don't ya know). But they can't get too close because of the high levels of radiation. That's sounds all good, but once the blast, the nuclear blast goes off and their submarine narrowly escapes it, they quickly surface and stand on the top of the sub. And Godzilla resurfaces and they go face-to-face with him. Weren't they just worried about radiation? (I'm sure their teeth have never been whiter.)

The biggest issue here is that the parts where Godzilla and company fight each other are so good, the parts where people talk are so tedious. And that's one thing I haven't been able to write about- the battles, and boy are they spectacular! So many shots are filled with wonder and awe, and topped off with little touches, like how heavy the monsters look when moving, things like that. How bad is everything else? Consider how perhaps the best line in the movie isn't spoken; rather, it's written, near the bottom of the credits. It was something like "... no animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture." I'm sure PETA will be happy to hear that the wild Godzillas were treated humanely.

Aladdin Review

Whether or not you like the newest live-action adaptation of a Disney animation classic, this time "Aladdin," depends on two things: how you feel about freshness, and how you feel about the Fresh Prince. Will Smith, taking on the role of the Genie, previously performed famously by the late Robin Williams, is in full "Fresh Prince" mode, talking, joking and rapping with all the swagger that gave him his big break in the mid-nineties. If you're on the fence about seeing this, answer honestly, does Will wearing a ridiculously large hat make you all giddy? Yes, then go buy your ticket, because it happens.

I'm all for Mr. Smith, who fills the impossible shoes left by Robin by bringing the role tons of fresh air. He's cool tone and confidence means you rarely notice how the script gives him very little new to say, because he makes it sound different. When he's on screen things feel unique and different, the way an adaptation, or remake, or whatever you want to call this, should feel. But he's only present for so much of the running time, and the lack of ingenuity is the film's fatal flaw- scenes and lines are ripped practically out of the animated flick, only the subtle differences will eventually eat away at whatever pleasure you're having and begin to irk you. It's a strange sensation, because by all means repeating greatness so close means you should again have greatness, but alas, we have a two star picture from four star material.

A lot of problems are rooted in the decision to hire Guy Ritchie as director and co-writer (along with John August), as his strengths at free-flowing action are shown off occasionally here, but are overwhelmed by his inability to do anything exciting with the core story. It's the same thing as cartoon version, for the most part, with street rat Aladdin stumbling into a genie who makes him a prince as he tries to impress Princess Jasmine and fight off the evil Jafar. Sure, he makes some cosmetic changes here (Jafar is no longer repulsed by the idea of marrying Jasmine to become the kingdom's sultan, for example), but fans will no doubt recognize every scene and anticipate the next, myself included. And save for a thrilling chase through the city streets late in the picture, one of a handful of moments where I'd recommend shelling out the surcharge for 3D, this is beat-for-beat the same movie, and by not improving or expanding upon its sources, you'll just find yourself watching a "lesser version" of the tale.

Take the famous "A Whole New World" duet. It should have been a showstopper, especially since I sprang for the 3D glasses, but there was little wonder onscreen. Oh sure, it did a decent job making me feel like I was on the flying rug between the two sweethearts, but the world they glided around was dark and unimpressive, every location looking the same as before (unless it was too dim to notice the change in scenery).

Then there is the casting of the titular thief and his royal love interest. Aladdin, played by Mena Massoud, has enough charm I suppose, but he looks too old to be playing a character traditionally described to be in his teens, and shares very little chemistry with costar Maoni Scott, who plays Jasmine. She looks far more comfortable in front of the camera, even as if she's trying to find some sort of spark between the two would-be lovers. She's gorgeous and wears her elaborate costumes very well, but she can only carry the couple so far. But the biggest issue with the performers is their voices- oh good golly, they just don't hold a candle to the original. My untrained ears could detect a few autotuned moments, which I'm fine with, but their body movements during song just never matched the volume flowing from their mouths. You'd hear them hit this powerful note, but their hand gestures and stances were stiff, as if they don't know how to sing and dance at the same time, something Will Smith has no problems with (in case you couldn't already tell, he's by far the best thing there).

If anything, I'd ultimately recommend against seeing "Aladdin;" just do what I wish I did- pop in the original, and then head to the interest and listen to Will Smith's rap rendition of "A Friend Like Me," which plays over the credits. While it's absolutely awesome to have another film starring the Fresh Prince that features an original song by the Fresh Prince, use your ten dollars and change toward YouTube Premium, so you can listen without ads.

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum Review

For such a simple plot, the third "John Wick" film has an excessive name- was "John Wick 3" too convenient? I suppose there is some stylistic choice behind it, as the flick is so packed with style that it's supple, soaked in the thickest technique that it is almost always great to look at, if you can past the absolute excessive violent bloodshed; at one point the title hero shoves then slices a man's neck down a stationary blade- "Subtly" will not likely be the obligatory fourth film's subtitle.

This is the first in the franchise I've actually seen, but why? Well, I don't have a particularly strong reason, except that Keanu Reeves has never been my favorite actor- he probably wouldn't even crack my top 100 favorite actors. But everyone and their dads keep recommending these movies, probably because I'm a pushover for material like this (the plot: whoever kills John Wick gets 14 million dollars, and he doesn't really want to die). So I went in blind, and before I knew what happened, he was pounding a book into some tall villain's mouth (talk about "eating your words"). And wouldn't you know, I had a blast, in a sort of sick, visceral way, one you're not exactly proud of, but give into anyway. This is the best time, in that sense, that I've had at the movies in a long time, rivaled only by "Cold Pursuit" earlier this year, although I found my smile to be a bit wider during that one.

There isn't as much of a movie to review here but more like a serial of fights, all choreographed, all polished, and all grittier than they have any right to be. Whatever the budget was, you'd be sure that more was spent on stunt doubles than acting lessons. There is a healthy mix of swordplay, hand-to-hand combat, and shootouts, although the gunplay is certainly the least interesting of the bunch (even the low-rent actioners can often competently show actors firing fake guns). But the rest is top-notch, starting at "over-the-top" and never going back, playing out like the best James Bond movie if they traded the sex, smoking, and espionage for violence, violence, and more violence.

The biggest regret here is the actual plot, which gets in the way of action and halts the momentum the film is so keen on keeping. There are far more secondary characters than there should be (and I'm not just talking about the various thugs who try to claim the bounty), and any time John puts down his fists (or knife, or sword, or gun, or... ), all the steam is lost. Once words are minced things get just as intense as they were before, but with a plot so oversimplified here, why bother with one in the first place?

But what can I say about Reeves, who has about as much dialogue in the film as a background character? He's convincing in the action pieces, I've read that he does a vast majority of his own stunts, and it shows. Acting more with his face than his words, he's adequate at showing some level of emotion, even if it's the same "ohhh Imma kill you" feeling, aside from one or two showcases of sorrow. Will "John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum" make me want to run out and buy all of Keanu's other works? Doubtfully, but I wouldn't mind checking to see if the first two installments are on Netflix.

Pokemon Detective Pikachu Review

Pokemon Detective Pikachu will only be seen by four types of people:

1. Children
2. Parents who were begged by their children to pay admission
3. Twenty-somethings who remember the franchise from when they were children
4. Film critics

There's the problem, the film doesn't know its audience, which is kids. My theater was packed with mostly kiddos and their guardians, who jumped for joy as they entered the movies but walked without such passion once the credits scrolled. I'm sure they enjoyed it, but I doubt they "got" it. The plot, which I'll get to in a second, was both too familiar and too complicated, and although Ryan Reynolds, who voices the titular Pikachu, got a few laughs with his "PG-Deadpool one-liners," it wasn't enough to sustain any sort of kinetic energy. Kids ultimately will end up liking all the bright colors, but that's all there is.

Oh I'm sorry, there I go assuming everyone and their child knows who Pikachu is, and what Pokemon are. In short, Pokemon are animal-like creatures from the self-titled franchise, and Pikachu, an electric mouse, is their mascot and a main character in this first live-action adaptation. The film acts like a safari, traveling across the damp city streets with dozens if not hundreds of cameos of different Pokemon. I'm sure that will tickle the fancy of children and adult-children, but their "blink-and-you-missed-it" scenes are ultimately inconsequential.

Getting to the plot, we follow Tim Goodman (Justice Smith), one of the few folks in the world who doesn't have his own Pokemon companion, an insurance salesman who's lived with his grandmother most of his life after his mother's death (a terrific theme for a picture opening Mother's Day Weekend). After a phone call, he travels to Ryme City, a sprawling municipal where people and little creatures live in harmony and as equals. But he's not there to sell them insurance! He meets with the local detective (Ken Watanabe) where we find out his father is presumed dead (could have used life insurance), but Tim hides his emotion and goes to close down his dad's apartment.

There he meets Lucy Stevens (Kathryn Newton), a wannabe reporter who is eager for her "big-break" and thinks that his father's death could be it. Why? During the crash that allegedly killed him, there was an explosion at a nearby lab, which has had no media coverage. Once inside the apartment, Tim stumbles upon Pikachu, Tim's father's amnesic Pokemon and partner who is unique in that Tim can understand him, and he can speak English (makes you wonder how the whole "living as equals" thing works when the two diverse cultures can literally not speak to one another, but I digress). Pikachu convinces Tim that his father isn't really dead and that it's a coverup, so the two set out to the streets, where they end up working with Lucy, and quickly are hot on the trail of "R," a sort of drug that is used by people to make their Pokemon go bezerk (which is brilliant anti-drug messaging if I've ever seen it, making kids pay to hear that drugs are bad).

Phew! Some narrative huh? And I haven't even gotten to the bad guy! But that's the major flaw here, the writers mistook multiple, overly-familiar plots for one unique, well-rounded one. There are kidnapping, cloning, government controlling the media, and just about every plot-point a film could hit, only a handful are well executed, the others are just, well, executed. They're either too vague, too adult for a kids movie, or just never followed up on. Even the ending, which I won't spoil, features a twist which is sitcom-level obvious. But the biggest crime is the human characters, who while not unlikable per se, they just exist next to significantly more interesting CGI monsters who receive none of the creative exposition.

Pet Sematary Review

I've frequented Maine a lot in my life, and it's eerie how "Pet Sematary," the second film adaptation of Stephen King's novel, captures that atmosphere, more so than 2017's "It." It's the little things, you know, like the towering trees in every shot, the quaint little towns with approximately the correct architecture, and most noticeable, how far apart neighbors are. So perhaps I'm not the best person to review "Pet Sematary," the film had the home-field advantage and I was on its team. Perhaps that's why I walked out of the theater, disturbed. This most recent of King's adaptations is a gory, unpleasant experience in animal and child death, toying with your innate emotions; I didn't shed a tear, but I knew I'd need a clean shower once the credits roll.

Jason Clarke plays loving father Louis Creed, who moves his family from the fast-paced world of Massachusetts to the small town of Ludlow Maine, a town whose population is just 404 according to my quick research (must be why there are so few pets in the actual Pet Sematary, but more on that later). Him and his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) have one boy and one girl, and viewers of the original 1989 adaptation may be surprised to know which one of the children end up carrying that scalpel- wow look at me, I'm getting ahead of myself here. Virgins to the story just know, that their new house rests on a road where eighteen wheelers fly through (and there's a lot of trucks for such a small population), and they never think to put a fence up.

Ultimately it's up to their new neighbor Jud (John Lithgow), a chain-smoking elderly local to warn them about what happens on their new piece of property. Not long after they arrive, the sound of faint drums start playing, where a group of children in animal masks carry down a dead dog into the woods (the same woods which I swear anyone raised outside the city grew up by). There is an animal graveyard in their backyard, deep behind their house, lending itself to the film's title, but that's not all that's behind their new home.

Behind the cemetery is an Indian burial ground, one that does more than simply offer a place for eternal rest. It has the power to bring things back from the dead, not as zombies but not back their original selves, something in between. The first we see is their pet cat Churchill, killed by one of those aforementioned trucks. Jud, who has grown a sort of friendship with the kitty's owner Ellie (Jete Laurence), the family's daughter, doesn't want to see her in any pain and brings Louis to the burial ground dig the cat's grave. He doesn't tell anyone about the power of that place until the next morning when the cat comes back, to the surprise of the parents. He's not the same however, with ratty hair and a bit of a mean streak, scratching the little girl and bringing a nearly dead crow onto young couple's bed. After trying to put the cat down (with whatever doctor's can put into syringes) he finds himself unable to go through with it, and decides to let it out into the wild, far away from his residence.

Of course, this is a movie, and every film since "The Incredible Journey" has taught us that animals will always find their way home. Then, at Ellie's birthday party, she spots Church on the road and, well, this is where the film loses me. Look, I know what happens, the kid dies (the daughter here instead of the son, I suppose that's the producer's idea of a refreshing change of pace), but why? Perhaps it works better on page than it does on film, but there is absolutely no pleasure in exploiting the tragedy this way. It made me squirm in my seat, my skin crawled and I winced in distaste. I suppose it's my fault, I mean, I walked into the theater knowing what I was getting myself into. Hell, I was munching on Jujubes amidst all the chaos. But it doesn't work in using this misfortune for anything but schlocky, cheap tricks.

Pet Sematary is an ugly film, one without much merit in terms of filmmaking outside it's rather authentic looking locales and charming cast of actors (before I get ahead of myself, it's worth calling out that Lithgow is a scene-stealer). Every time the music stops, a character looks somewhere any normal person would (such as within the pitch black crawlspace or behind the doors of a dumbwaiter), followed by cacophonous music cue and a monster jumping at the camera. Is that all it can do for the audience with such sensitive material? A child dies, and what we get is it calling its mom a cow and stabbing people to death? I suppose that would be considered a spoiler, but that's only if I could recommend seeing it.

I give this two and a half stars against my better judgement, because it ended up getting a reaction out of me, good or bad, and I must acknowledge that. And despite all the tasteless bloodshed, unlike "It," I didn't see in bloody detail the disembodying of children (RIP Georgie.)