In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews

Great Review mate. I'd personally rate Army of Shadows a -. It's a damn near perfect film in my eyes, and the ending is one of the most powerful i've ever seen. I really want to check out Last Tango in Paris as well. I seriously need to watch more Bertolucci.

I think you will enjoy the art, but I am unsure about the butter...

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

What's this, Gunslinger? You're using butter these days?

lol YES! How else am I supposed to eat toast?

I was about to go back and reply to really old reviews in this thread, like Gideon, as a joke, but decided against it so as to not spam up your thread. You should thank me.

Spank you! Spank you very much!

But I'm the one who needs spanking.....

Cinderella (2015)

Bonjour fellow MoFos! We return once again to An Evening at the Movies with The Gunslinger45! Who was finally able to get back out to the theater and away from studying and bad weather. And just in time to review a new Disney movie. But let me tell you I was NOT looking forward to this. Let’s face it; adaptations of Disney fairy tales into live action movies are not particularly good. Last year Maleficent was one of the more disappointing features for me. A crap retelling… did I say retelling? I meant butchering of one of my favorite Disney movies. Crap story, a rehashed twist from a far superior Disney film, and turning some of my favorite childhood characters into TERRIBLE ones. The only thing that made that movie watchable at all was Angelia Jolie, but not even she could not save it. Hell, this issue goes back even further. Remember Snow White and the Huntsman? What a piece of crap that was. The only way that movie would have been good is if Chris Hemsworth’s Huntsmen character just started killing EVERYBODY. Call down the berserker rage and lay waste to all, especially Kirsten Stewart. So needless to say I was not looking forward to a live action retelling of another Disney animated movie. Now don’t get me wrong, I liked Cinderella as a kid, but I did not love it. I even left it off my list for the Mofo Top 100 Animated List which was mostly Disney fairy tales. In fact the thing I was looking forward to the most in this trip to the theater was Frozen Fever; a short film where we revisit Elsa, Anna, Sven, Olaf, and Kristoff. That’s right, my most anticipated part of the screening was a short film based on another Disney movie. How sad is that? The best part of the ad campaign for this movie wasn't the s**t trailers but the fact that the Frozen short could ONLY be viewed if you bought a ticket to this movie. And before you make fun of me for doing so, there was a five year old sitting two seats down from me who said to her mother that they saw the short and asked to go home. Do not underestimate the appeal of Queen Elsa. So this film has a bad ad campaign, it is following a disappointing adaptation of another Disney classic, doing a live adaptation of a film that was told very well in animated form, and the only thing that got me into the cinema to see this is because the people at Disney are sneaky bastards who played upon my weakness as a Frozen fanboy. So the film is already at a disadvantage. But I did notice a few things that gave me a bit of hope. Unlike that crap Snow White movie and Maleficent, the trailers looked like they were actually going to stay close to the original fairy tale. This is not a retelling or some BS like it is “the untold story” of Cinderella (looking at you trailer for Pan). No it looked like it was actually going to be a pretty straight forward adaptation. Also, unlike the other two films, this time we actually have a proven and GOOD director: Kenneth Bragnah!



This film is not in the hands of a CGI artist like with Maleficent, this is being done by a legit director. A man with Oscar nominations, a BAFTA award for best direction in a motion picture, and has helmed multiple film adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays. And it seems a good director makes all the difference because this was actually pretty damn good.

Okay I do not need to go that much into the plot, because it is the same as the one in the Disney fairytale. Young girl, evil step mothers and sisters, fairy godmothers, goes to a ball, glass slippers, bags the prince, lives happily ever after, the end. However the story is more fleshed out. We start the film off actually seeing young Ella (she has not earned her nickname Cinderella yet) with her parents and her family. We see her loving mother, doting father, and show how they raised her to be kind and good. So we get to see why Cinderella is the way she is. But in typical Disney fashion, parents have to die. Her mother passes on in a very quick death that does not cause any sort of disfigurement, paling of the skin, or showing of ANY kind of illness or malady. Well Ella grows up to be a woman (and played by Lily James), dad remarries, and we get to see how Dad brings the step mother (played by Cate Blanchett) and step sisters into their home. This is significant since it is an event that is not rushed into (meaning it takes more than the first five minutes of the movie). Branagh lets it happen naturally. He was not afraid to focus on Cinderella and her parents for a bit in order to establish their bonds. Hence why even though I knew they were going to die, I did feel sad to see them go. And because if there is one thing Disney hates, it is parents, Papa dies too. On the verge of bankruptcy, this leads to the family help being let go and Cinderella getting to do all the chores. We also get more relationship building between Cinderella and Prince Charming, who actually gets a name and more of a personality in this movie. The Prince (known as Kit) meets Cinderella in the forest during a chance meeting. They share a few short (but surprisingly well done) moments together they go their separate ways. Sure this was basically how Aurora and Prince Phillip met in Sleeping Beauty, but it worked. And unlike another movie I saw in the theater, this movie had actual chemistry between the two leads. I got the feeling these two liked each other and it did not require a voice over or sh*t writing to explain it. To top it off while at the ball together, Cinderella and Kit actually spend time together talking, developing report, and learning a little bit about each other before midnight strikes. Sure she never gives her name, but that goes back to the fairy tale. There is also some political play going on the part of the Grand Duke and the King trying to get Kit to marry someone from a powerful country for an alliance, which I don’t think was really needed, but it was not badly done so I just accepted it. Now the film does not have the simple more fairy tale narrative where things just happen because it is a fairy tale, but Branagh is a good enough story teller to ensure that the story is still told correctly and told well with the new additions.

So the story is flushed out more (which is good) but there are also some bad parts to the film. Part of that has to do with certain actors; namely Cate Blanchett. Now Cate is a fantastic actress and she has two Oscars to prove it. And in certain scenes that talent gets to shine through, like when she confronts Cinderella with one of her newly discovered glass slippers. But then you have some of her performances toward the beginning of the film that seemed just a little too over the top. Partially I can blame her, but I think the brunt of this falls on the director Kenneth Branagh; who has been known to ham it up a bit from time to time.



But to Blanchett’s defense it is not just her. Her daughters are over the top annoying, Cinderella’s father does a little overacting when he is talking to her about remarrying, and if anyone is going to overact in a Kenneth Branagh production it needs to be Brain Blessed. And sadly Brian is absent from this movie. Another issue I had was the CGI. I felt the CGI was made to look a little too fantastic and it just seemed unnatural at times. Which I know is a silly thing to complain about in a fairy tale. But the parts dealing with Cinderella’s animal friends, turning the pumpkin into the carriage, the reveal of Helena Bonham Carter as the Fairy Godmother, and the like were just done so much better in the animated film. Now this wasn't nearly the CGI wank-fest that Maleficent was. CGI was used to excess and in my opinion the detriment of that film; a byproduct of being directed by a CGI artist and designer. It was filled with pointless computer generated moments, characters, and scenery that added nothing to the film except for eye candy. Kenneth does use quite a bit of CGI, but it did not feel excessive to me. In fact the only time I felt it was a distraction was the use of a CGI stag. Which between The Hunger Games, Into the Furnace and this film CGI deer have become a pet peeve of mine. Is it THAT hard to get a trained deer? Lord knows I am sure an animal trainer needs the work. Are we that afraid of the PETA people? But that seems to just be an issue on my part for this movie. There were also some … interesting choices with regards to the production design. For starters, why the hell does Cinderella have glitter on her boobs? Before she goes to the ball her dress is created by the Fairy Godmother. Why the hell did the Fairy Godmother feel the need to glitter up her fun bags? I haven’t seen this much glitter on t*ts outside of a strip club. Maybe Fairy Godmother has a side job we just don’t know about. There were also some questionable motivations, like why Cinderella insisted she stay at her family’s old house after here parent’s died. The explanations was much more schmaltzy then just saying I have no place else to go. Also they changed the motivation for the Grand Duke who wanted to ensure a Royal marriage in this film when he was all for the marriage between the Prince and Cinderella in the Disney movie. But I never cared about that character so it did not bother me.

But the film is still good. Branagh may not have the clot he used to in the 90’s, but he can still get the likes of Derik Jacobi and Stellan Skarsgaard to be in his movie, both of whom put on good performances. The film was also littered with short comedic beats just like he did when he directed Thor. Short little jokes, some clever word play, and even some slapstick creatively incorporated into the film and executed at just the right time. And while the CGI did bother me at times, there is one excellent CGI moment in the film when Cinderella gets her dress and the way the made it go from a torn pink color dress to a majestic dark blue one was not only REALLY well put together, but looked like a call back to the old Disney animated Sleeping Beauty feature. And glittery boobs in a Disney family movie aside, the production design overall is splendid! It is at the same time enchanting, regal, and bleak all perfectly balanced depending on the scene and mood. Which is something one should expect from the guy who put on an epic 4 hour adaptation of Hamlet. You add that into the story, with good performances, more than a few funny moments, and you have a film that is actually a lot better than it deserves to be.

Ultimately I feel this movie and movies like it are unneeded since I feel these stories are better off being told in animated form. But I got to admit Branagh did some damn good work here. He did the story justice, had plenty of call backs to the original Disney film and Sleeping Beauty, humor, and actually finally showed me a new movie this year where the two romantic leads actually had chemistry. Leaving me quite satisfied with the end result. If you are a Disney fan I say the film is actually worth seeing in the theater. If not, you can wait for Netflix or DVD.

Fantastic work as always, Gunslinger! I think I will watch Army of Shadows this week. I'll pass on Cinderella.

I hope you enjoy Army of Shadows! It is a great movie.

Bend over.

__________________

She gives great lap dances.

Two more excellent reviews, Gunslinger! With JayDee so scarce lately, you're filling the void quite nicely.

You've reminded me that I need to watch Army of Shadows and Le Samourai before submitting my 60's list. I loved Le Cercle Rouge, but so far it's the only Melville film I've seen.

It's funny to me that you're a pretty macho dude -- former member of the military, now a cop, enjoys shooting guns, etc. -- yet you have this soft spot for princess movies. I've been shocked by how well Cinderella is performing at the box office. The movie looked terrible, but it seems to really satisfy its audience. I'm surprised that one of your few negative points is the performance of Cate Blanchett, since she's the only thing about the film that might get me to watch it one day. I'm not even into the classic fairy tales, let alone this new trend of re-telling them. (Although I did kind of enjoy Snow White & the Huntsmen, primarily because of Charlize Theron, who gave one of the most scenery-chewing performances I've seen in recent years).

Looking forward to whatever you review next!

Focus

Hello MoFos! It is that time again for At the Theater with The Gunslinger45! I apologize for the delay. I ordered my internet equipment for self install almost three weeks ago, and AT&T dropped the ball on delivery. If it had not been for the infuriating time I had with Time Warner Cable I would have ended my service there. I should have chosen the option to have a cable technician to come out and install the internet as opposed to me installing it myself. I have two reviews on deck: one from two weeks ago and one from last week. I will post the second review around Wednesday. Anyway, the week I saw this film I had slim pickings to choose from. There was nothing I really wanted to see, and there was not a lot for me to choose from that would be regarded as so bad that I could go on an unhinged drunken ramble on why this movie sucks so much. Okay there was The Gunman with Sean Penn, but that looked like a snoozer. And I did not want to watch the movie Insurgent since I never saw Divergent. So I opted for the movie I would have seen if it had not been for Ice Storm Thor (which sounds so f***ing metal). That was the week I was supposed to see Focus but due to ice, I instead stayed inside and watched Last Tango in Paris. This week I got to finally see the movie. Now Will Smith’s star has taken a hit with some questionable choices in films, particularly After Earth. Which makes 90’s me sad since Independence Day and Men In Black made the dude so damn cool. Hell at one point in time I was excited at the prospect to see Wild Wild West. Ya live, ya learn. Now his co-star Margot Robbie on the other hand is red hot to me! And I do mean that as a double entendre. As y’all well know I LOVED The Wolf of Wall Street (my favorite film of that year and my second favorite Scorsese movie period). And I thought Margot was excellent in that movie. So I really don’t need a reason to see this movie beyond her. Does that mean this is a good movie? No. Is it a bad movie? No. The film is more… Meeeh. Which is not what I should describe a movie starring The Fresh Prince and Margot “Down Under Bombshell” Robbie. So what makes this film so mediocre? Well grab your shades and guard your wallets, as we explore the movie Focus.

We open in a Hyatt Hotel (one of MANY product placements in this movie along with Dodge and Budweiser) where Nicky (Smith) meets a young con artist named Jess (Robbie). She is green and rough around the edges. So smitten by her charms (and vice versa) Nicky takes her under his wing. The two operate with a group of other con artists; pick pockets, tech guys, and assorted thieves. All of whom work together to pull in a sizable score working the New Orleans Super Bowl scene. But the movie could not afford the rights to the NFL logos or any of the teams. Guess they did not have the connections Draft Day did. Nicky and Jess begin a romantic affair during the job and start sleeping together. Which led to several people in the audience actually gasping that Robbie briefly bears her breasts in the movie. Clearly this audience NEVER saw The Wolf of Wall Street. Nicky and Jess carry on in their con and seem like a pretty good couple. Until the job is done, the score is settled, cuts are made and Nicky says a very sudden goodbye to Jess. We then fast forward to three years later with Nicky doing another job in Buenos Aries for a guy named Garriga. And of all the con jobs to walk in on, Jess once again enters Nicky’s life. Now the con takes a back seat, as we follow Nicky is trying to get Jess back. Does he succeed? Maybe you’ll find out if you bother to watch the movie.

Okay let’s gets the bad part out of the way, the story and plot of the film sucks. I was lead to believe (thanks to the trailers) that this was going to be a film about cons, lust, and ultimately betrayal. Instead I get a romance movie with a heist and conman subplot. So much for accuracy in advertising. Now granted the romance movie is not a chick flick style romance (unless you count Chasing Amy with all the cursing, some very vulgar dialogue, and one instance where Robbie compares her panties to a crime scene during her period). But the major conflicts of the film center more on Nicky and Jess then the cons. And to be honest the story is not executed very well. I think the Black woman sitting next to me said it best,

This guy is doing all of this s**t for a piece of tail? I don’t like this movie.

And as much as it annoys me when people talk during a movie, this sassy Black lady was not wrong. The beginning to the relationship is good, but the sudden break up in New Orleans is rushed and underdeveloped. We get an explanation about hard hearts are needed in this business being passed on to Nicky by his father, but the thief world is not really depicted as this hard cutthroat business. There is no scene of betrayal between coworkers to show this supposed truth. If anything they are all depicted as friends and bros. No conflict, no issues, not even one group A-hole. And every group of this size has to have at least one A-hole. So why does this guy need to have a hard heart? Because Nicky’s conman daddy said so? I call BS on the writing.

Speaking of BS writing, let’s talk about the twists. This film has so many fake outs and twists I’m sure M. Night Shyamalan told the writer he was over doing it! One twist is set up REALLY well toward the beginning of the film, but the end result is some BS pull a rabbit out of your ass cop out. Now it was funny how they pulled it off, but it was a bit too farfetched for me. Another HUGE plot hole was reveled toward the end of the film about a computer hacking job that was done. Apparently the writer tried to cram as many twists as he could toward the end, which led to writing himself into a corner. And before Nicky could even explain how he pulled of the hack, he gets shot. And this miraculous mystery hack is never brought up again after that. We also get another final twist that I thought was beyond dumb.

The bodyguard for Garriga who shoots Nicky is also his father. And that just makes the end result of the job even more stupid. I mean why do you have to shoot your son? Sure he does not kill his son, and the plan calls for Garriga leaving and then taking Nicky to a hospital with the money. But why not just point the gun at Garriga and his other henchman, lock them in the truck of a car with no cellphones or electronic devices, grab the loot and head for Cuba! Now you don’t risk having your son bleed out if Garriga decides to stick around. And I know we had the explanation and foreshadowing of this extreme con technique, but that does not make it any less stupid. It was a pointless twist and an idiotic way to end the scene.

To top it all off, these supposedly cool, suave, super slick thieves are just plain DUMB! Nicky hiring a random stranger to do a con job and then starts sleeping with her? Dumbass. The whole double or nothing game at the Super Bowl considering the odds it would succeed? Dumb. Explanation for how it was pulled off? Dumber. Barely working in the con game after he dumped Margot Robbie despite your lavish lifestyle? Stupid. Getting side tracked in a job which could net you millions of Euros to chase after your ex? Stupider still. The idea to double cross a guy who hires you to do a con? REALLY f***ing stupid. A certain someone walking down the streets of Buenos Aries with around 25 Million Euro in three large duffel bags and not taking the car? About as smart as putting your junk into the garbage disposal. I felt like this film needed another draft or two.

But the film is not all bad. Where the story and plot are lacking, they did make up for it in dialogue and casting. They casted two very good actors for the lead roles, and had some good actors for side characters. The chemistry on the film was excellent, and the performances were spot on. The cast is doing their best to make this film good and elevate it above what it really is. And they do it to an extent, but it is not enough to save the film. Will Smith and Margot Robbie put in great performances and they sizzle when on screen together. Sure they are no Bogart and Bacall, but they do make me believe they had a connection. And Adrian Martinez is the scene stealer of this movie. Between his extremely vulgar talk about him hinting of a homosexual relationship between him and Will Smith, to his frank discussions of sex that in real life would have Margot Robbie filing a sexual harassment lawsuit instead of laughing, the man was simply funny as hell!

Ultimately though there are not enough laughs in this film to save the movie, and the on screen duo of Smith and Robbie alone can’t make this film good. You have some really good parts, but some crappy parts as well. I can’t say this film was worth the price of admission, or even worth a Red Box rental. If you have HBO and this comes on, it could be worth your time if you are waiting for Game of Thrones to come on. Otherwise I think most people can pass on this.

Nice review Gunslinger! I am interested in this movie, although I'm sure I'll be disappointed. I'll watch it on cable, like you suggest.

I think you made the right choice.

I stole your picture from JayDee's thread:



Everything you wrote about Focus confirms what I already suspected. At best, it looks like a rental. Like you, I'd love to see Will Smith recapture the glory of his 90's heyday, but I don't see it happening. I still can't believe he turned down Django Unchained for After Earth. Something's wrong with the man.

(By the way, your picture for Focus isn't showing up.)

I will edit the pic when I get a chance.

It Follows

Hello MoFos! It is time for another installment of At the Theater with The Gunslinger45. Finally after getting my internet up and running I can now post the review that should have been posted last week. Again, I am sorry for the delay. When I went to the theater that week, we were still in the part of the theatrical release schedule that is not quite the crap of the dump months, but not quite the start of the summer blockbuster season. I was not interested in seeing the kid’s movie Home since it did not look all that appealing. Not to mention I am not that big on Dreamworks animated movies the way I am with Disney. And as funny as Kevin Hart is I am VERY hesitant to see his new flick with Will Ferrell, who is VERY hit or miss with me. One film caught my eye though. It Follows. A film in limited release advertised as a horror film that was described on Rotten Tomatoes as a “nightmare journey.” Horror movies that are good in the modern age are few and far between. Most are repetitive, cheaply, crap full of poor writing, terrible acting, and are nothing but jump scares. And critics and audiences alike have responded with generally negative reviews. Which made this film all the more intriguing as the film currently was sitting at a 95% Certified Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes with a 72% rating from audiences to boot. So I decided this will be my film for the evening. Now with a tag like that I was hoping for a surreal David Lynch style film. I was disappointed in that regard. But was I disappointed overall? Nope! This is actually a really good movie!

The film opens on a young girl running out of her house in the suburbs in nothing but a nighty and panties on. She hops into a car and immediately drives to a secluded area on the shore of some large body of water. The film takes place in Michigan so it is safe to say it is one of the Great Lakes. That night, the girl calls her father on her cell phone, gives a deep heartfelt apology and a tearful goodbye. The next morning she is found dead and disfigured. We then cut to yet another part of the suburbs and are introduced to Jay Height, a teenage girl in high school who lives with her sister Kelly and mother. We are also introduced to Yara and Paul. Both are childhood friends to the two sisters. We are also introduced to Greg, their neighbor, and to a boy named Hugh. Hugh and Jay go out on a first date to the movies. In line they decide to play a game of people watching. During the game however, Hugh becomes disturbed by something he sees. Jay cannot tell what he is talking about but it is enough for them to leave the theater. They go on a second date that ends with the two of them having sex in the back of Hugh’s car. But something strange happens. Jay begins noticing a strange figure of a nude woman walking slowly towards her and Hugh. Hugh gives Jay a cryptic warning about the strange entity coming near her saying it he passed it to her, and that she can pass it to someone else if she sleeps with them. If she does not, the creature will catch her and kill her. To make things even more complicated the creature can change its form and it looks like various different people in every scene. Hugh then drops her off at her house before disappearing into the night. The rest of the movie is Jay and her struggle to grapple with the reality of this … thing coming after her; all the while trying to convince her friends and family that this thing that only she can see is real. And that it is coming to kill her.

This film is awesome! The cinematography for the film is excellently done. Lots of complex and well crafted camera movements are put together to create a very well shot film. The acting is very good by general film standards, and excellent by modern day horror standards. The characters are distinct and avoid the stock character stereotypes you see in most horror movies. There is no A-hole jock, no stoner, and no school tramp. These characters are people. Some tend to look the part of slasher stock characters, but none act in accordance to those roles. The film does follow similar slasher rules in its story telling though. We have the entity set on killing teenagers, it is seemingly impossible to kill, it only walks and never runs, teens that have sex tend to die, and for whatever reason the police and parents are left out of the situation.

Which actually brings us to a major theme of the film. Sex. The entire film is based on the idea that for an unexplained reason this thing is set on killing teens that have sex. Now that is a standard slasher trope. It has been that way in all major slasher franchises from Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, to Scream. But this film plays with that trope by having the sex be literally the thing that leads to their deaths. In slashers past it was more of a rule. In this film it is act X causing effect Y. Now, one could look at this as a commentary on the dangers of teenage sexuality and how it should not be taken lightly. Which I think is a legitimate interpretation, but it could also just be the director having fun with the subject matter. The film was influenced by a series of nightmares director David Robert Mitchell had. And he does seem to be well versed in the tropes of classic horror movies. But those classic horror movies generally were not really deep when it comes to subtext. Most were just meant to be fun. Now some have been praised by critics for their craft and or satirical value, but not a lot are praised for social commentary. So while the interpretation is still valid like I said, I still hesitate to say this is supposed to be a social commentary. Then again the creature takes on various different forms (including one that could be spoilers) and since I am not familiar with the directors other work, I could be wrong. I will leave that up to you. Either way I will try and pay more attention to that on the next viewing.

As I said the film was constructed by a director who is very familiar with the tropes of horror movies and seems to be influenced by two big name directors in the genre. The film is set in the Midwest, introduced in the suburbs, classic black and white sci-fi features play on their TV, has a slow lingering supernatural creature stalking a female protagonist, and apparently cannot be killed. This movie seems to take its biggest influence from John Carpenter and Halloween. This is also shown in the excellent cinematography, but also in the score. The movie score varies from time to time, but always seems to return to a synth like sound that reminds me a lot of John Carpenter’s scores. And much like Carpenter’s Halloween, this movie OOZES atmosphere! This movie knows when be quite; how to properly set the mood, and lets the camera and soundtrack tell the audience what is going on. But aside from Carpenter this movie has a secondary influence. All be it a more subtle influence. The in the move one of the first scenes is at a place called the Redford Theater in Detroit. Which was the first place that premiered a then unknown Sam Raimi’s film called The Evil Dead. Now this film does not have the practical gore effects (or much gore at all), but the film does have quite a few point of view shots that resemble the POV shots of the Deadites approaching the cabin in Evil Dead and Evil Dead II. Which was probably inevitable. After all, it would be hard to believe David Robert Mitchell was not influenced by fellow Michigan resident Sam Raimi in making this horror movie.

That being said there are a few nitpicks, but they are just that. Minor stuff like why is the car light on when Jay and Hugh are having sex, certain decisions made in order to try and see if the invisible thing is still after Jay, and few other little things here and there. But the film does its job so well, those issues do not stay in my mind for long and I can brush them aside. In all honesty there is very little about the film I can really talk about. I think it is a very good film. It is not the most original film, but it does take already familiar subject matter and does present it in a new way and does so in a very well constructed work. If you are a horror fan and want to see a good movie in the theater I say this is for you. Go see it in the theater if you can.

Yet another exceptional review, Gunslinger!

You're right: it's almost unheard of for a modern horror film to have such a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I have very high expectations for It Follows. One of my friends went and saw it and said it was very creepy . . . the kind of horror film that had him constantly checking over his shoulder later that night and leaving lights on and stuff.

Oh it is totally that kind of horror movie. And atmosphere galore!