phildeesnow

It's insulting to compare this to any iconic characters like Leatherface, Michael Myers or even Jason.

What is wrong with you people?.

This is corn with a p, for gore fans...and it's not even well done.

If the goal of the people involved in this vile piece of crap was to make the most irritating mime have a name they succeed, but it's just that. An irritating mime, and mimes are irritating by definition so nothing original there.

I fast forward the whole thing looking for something interesting and I couldn't find it.

The dialogues are long and pointless so, to me was just boring, stupid and cruel for no reason.

As an Argentinian i'm feeling upset, which I think is the purpose of the movie. I'm feeling upset because i'm feeling stupid, let me clarify, it's not like me or anyone of my generation took him seriously, but if Netflix was interested in the man, it is because they might have thought there was something special about him, or his story...but there's no story, because from the beginning we know it's a hoax.

The story is so linear and simple, that the only mystery is trying to figure out, who is the showgirl, t.v personality, and hookup lady, and why was he interviewing her with his pants down?. That character made as much sense as using an umbrella to get out of a swimming pool, and that's in the movie too.

Altogether, it's boring and I keep wondering if it was supposed to be a comedy or what.

I'm guessing that 95 percent of the total budget for this movie went to pay the people who wrote the reviews here...or maybe all the brainless MAGA cult members gathered here to praise this steaming piece of crap.

With well known names in horror movies like the ones in here, I can't believe that the best actor is the little kid.

The girl who plays the sister should stop with whatever is the crap she is injecting in her lips and take some acting classes if that's what she really wants to try, but I wouldn't raise her hopes too much.

To the people who wrote all the great reviews, have you no shame?.

It's a great 80's movie, unfortunately for everyone involved in the making of the movie it's almost 2025.

It's full of references of great movies from the 80's and great directors like everyone mentioned before, Cronenberg, Terri Gillian, Oliver Stone, Kubrick and by the end, even Troma...if you remember The Toxic Avenger... With references to Scanners and even Carrie. So it reminded me of a Saturday matine at my childhood's movie theater. Nostalgia, but it wasn't enough... The thing that bugged me from the beginning was the casting of Sue, Why they didn't find someone who at least looked like Demi Moore?, this girl is closer to Sylvia Kristel as if she was doing "Emmanuel does the fly".

The music is annoying and triggered my tinnittus and if you are prone to migraines, take your medicine before watching this.

Was it horror or comedy?... What did I miss?.

First of all, I'm gay...duh!, and I watched the movie just because someone posted the picture of "the guy from Will and Grace" naked in the shower on Twitter, X or whatever it is now. (BTW, I don't know what censored version of the movie I saw on Tubi, but there's no nudity at all).

All of the sudden I found myself crying because that was my story. With the only difference that in my case it's been almost 40 years and i'm still waiting for him to come back.

I read all the comments on the reviews and I might feel pathetic for believing in love, and loving a "straight" boy for more than five years... But I'm not sick, or psychotic. I just wish the end of my story was as sweet as that one.

I guess it's up to you to figure out what is this movie about.

As in many works of art, (specially to pretentious people), you might find a lot of different ways to interpret what you are watching...and there's no wrong answers.

Is it all symbols that only Freud can figure out?, or is it a real story about a woman with a mental illness that gave birth to twins in the middle of the woods?... unless the writer and director come out and tell us what is the truth, i'm guessing that whatever you believe is the right answer.

There's no point of me telling you what I think it all means, because it doesn't matter since you are the one coming to conclusions.

It's slow paced and could be boring to most. The kids are amazing and the photography is beautiful, as for the movie as a whole... you'll have to figure it out, and there's no wrong answers.

I'm pretty sure that if this was a stage play, let's say a theater experience could have been a 10.

It's one of those greatly written plays, that in the context of a movie it gets lost.

For a movie, so much dialogue turns boring... specially nowadays when everything seems to go faster or have the need to be resolved as soon as possible.

I don't know if this was a stage play or not, but as satisfaction goes I would have enjoyed it more if the experience involved an outing and a chat with a friend over coffee.

I'm one of the few who can relate to the bullying in school, and the fantasies of revenge... Not intense enough to make it a movie. Nobody is that messed up, unless you were always a total psycho.

First than anything let me clarify that i'm argentinian and the one star I give is because the photography of Buenos Aires is beautiful.

Because everyone was talking about it I started watching it.

In the first few episodes I thought it was going to be the story about this quirky airhead of a certain age looking for love... When I realized that the main character was an unsympathetic and annoying Argentinian Karen, every episode started feeling more and more upsetting to say the least Then I completely stop caring and I kept on watching out of curiosity about the only two likeable characters, one was a dog and the other one a guy who let himself being treated like a dog.

To top my disappointment it has no ending, so if the second season is never made, that was it...

I was so eager to see how this movie turned out to be, they have been toying with teasers and news about it forever...so I was excited to see it when it finally came out.

Now my question is, why tamper with a classic if you are not going to make it any better?.

There's no excuse, this movie is boring... One thing is "atmospheric" like the first one, or "slow burning" like that series with Rob Lowe...but we already know that it's about vampires, what's the point of making it so slow?.

I give the one star to the cinematography and the 4k treatment because it's nicely done, but I don't think that just because it is about vampires it should suck so bad.

Yes, this movie is for only fans of the franchise and are able to understand everything, from the plot to the Easter eggs.

The movie is aimed to their fandom and doesn't care for the rest of the audience.

I'm just a person who likes movies, and I like them...but this is a convoluted mess that goes from boring and complicated to action packed scenes so convoluted that my eyes were tired... I don't think it's for kids because of all the gore, although the humor is as silly and infantile as it can be.

If you are a Marvel fan you are going to love it.

If you are watching it because...kids...I'm sorry for you.

When I saw the preview of this one it came the vague but no so distant memory of the movie... That's when after a short research I found out that this was a remake of a recent movie.

But what do I remember... I do remember loving it until the end but thinking..."Jesus Christ that was upsetting" and hating the end so much that I erased it from my memory.

Luckily enough, we have Hollywood and of course the end has to be an "American one", and I appreciate it... Being that this is almost the same movie but with some little things changed to make it satisfactory, I'm glad they did and I'm thankful for it.

Couldn't they call it a remake?... There must be a reason why they couldn't, because it is a remake. Not as bad as that BET that was made few years ago as a series, but still, it's a remake.

With the most fabulous and dazzling devil I could imagine...and a very, not young Nicole Kidman, Vera.

You might have to watch the movie in order to understand what I mean.

Although it's a copy of the original, it has been such a long time, that it is ok to watch...compare and love to hate.

Remember years ago when Gus Van Sant made a frame by frame remake of Psycho?... This is almost the same.

This is fresh, not that bad.

I just came here to say that, because another reviewer started by talking about Sally Fields... either she is extremely wrong, or I watched a different movie.

As for the one I watched with Elizabeth Perkins, not Sally Fields...was a bore fest as everyone else mentioned same idea of Groundhog day, but this wasn't funny.

It pretended to be one of those "brainy" movies that let you thinking about meaningful things, but that's it... just pretentious.

One of the things that annoys me from many Hollywood movies is they not consider the people who live in the location they shoot the movie.

I know that nobody cares because they don't live in the location, but in this case I do...and that cute scene with the rhino, is done in a park with CGI not a zoo.

Did I mention that Sally Fields doesn't work in this movie?.

I don't care if the dogs are cgi of the worse kind, animal abuse is not for me.

Yes, I know that no animals were harmed in this movie, but even if that's true I cried in the beginning of Bambi and we didn't get to see the moment the mother died. This CGI dogs are way too bad even if we were in the 90's...but it's 2024.

The acting, or fare to say, the overacting is expected from Korean movies...but this is horrible at every level, to be honest...I couldn't bare to watch it until the end, but life is too precious to waste it on this kind of crap.

The whole project should have stayed silent forever.

Sorry, maybe this review has no merit since I couldn't watch the whole thing.

If you are like me, and get disappointed and upset about bad CGI and can only tolerate it when is a spoof like in Sharknado, this is not for you.

As soon as I saw the CGI lion being worse than the ones in the live action Lion King, I realized that was not for me... But I kept watching because I love Anthony Hopkins, when I found out that he would only be few minutes on screen, that's when I quit.

I thought, because of the time passed, that this would be in the line of Spartacus but better, but it wasn't. At least in Spartacus you have some full frontal nudity and you would not be bored.

Sorry for Sir Anthony Hopkins.

I was expecting so much from this movie, the son of the protagonist of the iconic classic considered by the world, the best horror movies of all times, directing a movie about The Exorcist...it was bound to be good.

How could they manage to make it so bad is beyond me.

This was bad...but to the point of thinking that maybe it was a parody in the style of Scary Movie, but no...this was supposed to be taken seriously.

The pace is slow, but not building anything, just slow and boring.

Choppy editing, and plot holes as big as the original's fame.

Unfortunately if there was any hope that, the next Pope's Exorcist could be any good, this pile of steaming vomit coming out of Russell Crowe's resume, just sank it to the bottom of hell.

It's not a spoiler, I'm just doing you are favor, it's not horror, there's nothing scary, there are no jump scares or idiotic CGI.

It's a mystery movie and it could be suspenseful, but not the white knuckles type. More like the brainy kind.

At one point it seems like a Scooby Doo episode but longer, way longer and not as silly.

It's not convoluted or twisted as the Agatha Christie novels and if you are into this genre you might even guess the end.

I gave it a 7 because it is intriguing and entertaining, beautiful to look at, and well acted... although I would go easier on the forehead Botox (sometimes I couldn't figure out if she was laughing or crying).

I agree with mostly all of the low reviews.

It's long, and it might become tedious.

The characters are unlikeable.

The unwinding of the plot point seems to be a middle finger to the viewers.

There's way too much going on to even make it into the agenda.

Nobody seems to care or noticed the bad CGI, or the incongruence of ambient.

It's supposed to happen during the mid 80's but everything looks as the 70's in the beginning and then of the 90's by the end.

And there's something called perspective, you can't have building far away looking as clear as the objects nearby.

Those are 6 hours that I will consider a long nap, just because I don't want to be upset.

I don't know if I could say "stupid" since lately it seems like even the word is censored in Facebook and TikTok.

I remember during the earlier 80's when I was a preteen and thought that I could be a writer, I dreamed of making a horror movie. Now, looking back in time, I can see the pretentiousness of my ideas, and how crappy those movies would have been. Non of them as bad as this movie.

It's infantile, because it seems to be written by an 11 years old. With the things that would only scare a child. Also with dialogues that only little kids would use.

It's as bad as the bad reviews said, and I would dare to say that it's worse.

I thought that Hollywood wasn't doing this anymore, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Dante's Peak, Volcano and I could continue...but I'm just going to make myself clear with just a title "Ticket to paradise". For a moment I was wondering if I already saw this movie...and then I realized that no, it wasn't Brooke Shields but Julia Roberts and not Benjamin Brat but George Clooney, I think you got it.

This movies trying to catch the Mamma Mia vibe are going to fail, particularly because there's no Abba involved, or an original idea for what matters.

I still can't figure out if this was a comedy, because I didn't laugh not even once.

And if by the end credits they were going to "break the 4th wall", why not take advantage of having Brooke Shields and make some Blue Lagoon joke?... Maybe that would have made me chuckle.

Heavily influenced by the 80's classics like The Shining, Cujo and The Exorcist this movie shows up in 2024...this raised many questions, specially...Why?.

And where did all The Simpsons money go?, I mean, you have to be pretty desperate for money to agree to do a movie like that. Obviously I'm talking about Lisa Simpson herself in one of the worse characters a horror movie could have had. A psychologist who covered up an exorcism gone bad and under the suspicion of another one, immediately tried to send the kid to a mental institution.

Don't be fooled by the title, it's referring to the possession of belongings in a storage facility, because the only attempt for an exorcism is done off camera in plain daylight. No possession, nothing to see here.

Yeah, it's like everyone else is pointing out a little bit like A Quiet Place, for me with some Bird Box and since we are adding to the mix, let's put some Critters...yes, the rip off of Gremlins from the 80's, and why not?... the shaky camera work that made people sick on The Blair Witch Project. So, it lacks originality and it's slow and full of holes.

If this are not spoilers, you might want to know that the creatures are like a platypus, body of a scabies ridden dog, with an alligator face depending on the angle, because it also looks and act like the Babadook.

CGI is as bad as you can imagine it would be, but not as bad as Nicolas Cage's wig.

The twinks are cute, but there's no way they could be related even though they are supposed to be twins.

Enjoy.

Sorry but NO, even actors should intervene and say hell no, it's ruining their careers.

CGI upsets more and more people every day, I'm glad I'm not the only one, bad CGI is a turn off, and there's no explanation why they would rather rely on CGI than do it with stunts or practical effect rather than with a cartoon replacing the person.

It upsets me so much, I couldn't even finish.

If I want to see a blend of cartoons and people I would rather watch, Who framed Roger Rabbit? A hundred times than going into this atrocity.

I'm sorry for the actors...but, you know you can say No, right?.

Cats are awesome, why replace them with CGI?.

I don't know who did the casting for this, but definitely the real Griselda Blanco was closer to look like the Hamburgler than Sofia Vergara with all that horrible make up.

I know that something is wrong with a movie or series, if by half way through I'm here writing a review after reading all of them. I agree with everything expressed by the low ratings, so I'm not going to repeat that.

I just hope Andrew Lloyd Webber gets the itch to to a musical based on this, since Netflix glorified a real life monster and made her look like Evita.

The best thing was to hear Karol G, without autotune. And it was good because she is barely in it.

I can't give it the whole 10 stars, because, if there's something that I can't stand almost as much as my tinnitus it is, jazz lounge music...I could put it in the same list as babies crying in airplanes, cats in heat and overly happy parrots, and there's a lot of that music in this movie. Actually I think the whole soundtrack is jazzy music. Other than that it was awesome.

Put in a blender, Futurama, When Harry met Sally, and one of the best written sketches from Saturday Night Live and you'll have this movie.

There are so many kinds of humor, but in here you're going to find the intelligent kind, no rudeness, insult, stupid slapstick or dark. It's just clever and silly, just the way we feel when we are in love.