SickBoyGoreHound Reviews

Hellraiser (2022)

It's not a terrible horror movie but it IS a bad Hellraiser movie

[5/10 · 14 October 2022]

At its core, the original Hellraiser (1987) was a story about the darkest, sordid recess of human nature. It was about desire and lust, possession and betrayal and how these powerful, very human feelings can push people on the brink of inhumane horror.

It was - at the same time - also a story of lovecraftian cosmic horror, where the characters face a terror so powerful and behond human comprehension that defeat was inevitable. All things considered, it was a truly nihilistic and dark statement on human nature.

The somewhat-superior-somewhat-inferior sequel - Hellboud: Hellraiser II (1988) - dealt with the consequences of such horror, with the obsession derived from it, with madness and will, with power and seduction.

Both movies had thematic layers and depth and the horror, the cenobites, the lore were just tools and background to tell these deeply nihilistic stories about the horrors that lies in the depths of human nature.

From there on out, the franchise went off the rails, piling up inferior movie after inferior movie. The reason of this debacle is that the producers made the horrible mistake of thinking that the lore (the cenobites, the box/the Lament configuration and so on) were actually the point.

Which brings us to THIS movie. After a brief, shallow and bland characters introduction, the entire focus of the story starts revolving around the box, cenobites and all that stuff, in the same shallow, bland way the characters were presented.

It isn't even interesting from a lore perspective: at least, the otherwise abysmal Hellraiser: Judgement (2018) gave some juicy bits of new, fascinating lore. Here it's just the same ol' same old except it's more incoherent than in previous installments to the point where almost nothing makes sense.

Eventually, the whole movie became a run of the mill slasher, with cenobites chasing empty characters in the woods. There are no themes in sight, nothing is said about human nature , no layers, no depth. Sure, its gory but its lifeless and, what's worse for an Hellraiser installment, its meatless. Flesh-less.

Clayton's performance as the new Hell Priest/Pinhead is interesting and works perfectly fine. It does not compare with Doug Bradley's, but it doesn't have to.

Everything else is just bland and lifeless - which is too bad, considering the other movies in this director's filmography were pretty great, subtle and smart - and there is clearly an attempt at going in the right direction, with lots of practical effects, gorgeus set design and some attention to details: it really smells as if the failing are on the studio/the producers.

Prey (I) (2022)

Engaging and gory action romp is the best installment in the "Predator" franchise.

[7/10 · 5 August 2022]

Don't get me wrong, the original is a classic but it's also a pretty old movie and it shows: when it came out it was already inferior to the 8-years-older "Alien" but, for the time, it was a pretty good, mindless action flick.

This one manages to be a fun and entertaining action flick without being completely mindless and, actually, with a couple of things to say (there's an especially strong theme about the relationship between hunter and prey).

The premise is pretty basic, goes back to the roots of the genre and keeps it simple: "very competent but awfully unequipped hero has to fight super-advanced hunter/space monstrosity", the titular hero has a problem (and a personal goal) that end up intertwined with the task of defeating the aforementioned space monstrosity which, for its part, is appropriately ruthless and blood-thirsty.

It's a well written, character driven, action story that takes its due time, in the first act, to establish characters and situations and, when it starts moving, is fast paced and thrilling.

Cinematography and camerawork are good and nice to look at, the VFX are mostly great, there's some good acting from a fresh cast (in fact, the acting is better than in any of the previous movies in the franchise, even though this isn't saying much), a nice, serviceable soundtrack and, as I already mentioned, some thematic layers - thin layers, for sure, but it's an action movie after all - that makes it a just-above-average coming of age tale.

Lots of well executed gore and a couple of pretty epic, spectacular moments complete the picture in what is, overall, the best installment in this franchise (at least so far).

There's even a nice, low-key nod to (the underrated) "Predator 2".

Overall, if you liked the original movie there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't have a lod of fun with this one: it's not a masterpiece (and neither was the original) but it's thouroughly good and ejoyable.

7/10.

The Lodge (2019)

Pretty good slow-burner about the danger of religion and (emotional) isolation

[7/10 · 15 July 2022]

This one is a well acted, and extremely well crafted, allegorical piece about the danger of religious thinking and emotional isolation on fragile minds.

The acting, as said, is superb: Riley Keogh gives an hypnotic performance but the two kids are also great.

Fiala's and Franz's direction is never flamboyant but, rather, it's ingenious and elegant, and always in service of the story.

The movie discretely pays homage to its two most egregious influences, Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" and Carpenter's "The Thing", while never feeling like a rip-off or a rehash of those classic masterpieces.

Would make for great 'double feature' about toxic religion, mental illness and spiraling madness, togheter with Saint Maud (2019).

The Black Phone (2021)

Good (not great) execution of weak material.

[5/10 · 15 July 2022]

So, a lot of people are praising this movie and that's mostly because it's a crowd-pleaser and, unfortunate as it may be, crowd-pleasing movies are rarely good.

Yes, it's well made, nicely shot, it has some very good performance (especially from the younger actors) and... that's about it.

Its biggest problem is in the original story. For all the ruckus Joe Hill went through to distanciate himself from his worldwide-know father (Stephen King) his writing seems to have inherited all of the worst problems of his father's style - not least the costant references to other, better works (the alcoholic and abusive father of the two "shining" kids is called 'Terrence' and the daughter is Gwenn(d)y? I mean, really?).

However, the real problem is with the story itself and, most egregiously, with the complete lack of stakes as soon as the proceedings get going.

Yes, I said lack of stakes because, as soon as the kid is abducted, he almost instantly starts getting otherworldy phone calls from the previous victims of his kidnapper so, in the end, it really is the psychopath who is facing the supernatural forces helping the protagonist. All the while both the police, with traditional methods, and the little sister with a form of dream-induced "shining" are searching for him. Add to that the fact that the psychopath has no intention to kill the kid, because he wants to keep him alive to play some sort of sick, twisted, excessively convoluted game and there you go: the kid is never really at risk.

Now, that leads into the other huge problem: the structure. The idea is that the decesead victims calling through the titular black phone are more than happy to provide our main character with all the clues he need to both escape his confinement AND mount an effective offensive strategy against his captor. Which, fine, could be an interesting idea.

However, the way the story goes about it is reminescent of the old "graphic adventure" games from the early '90s: go through some dialogue, find an object/clue, use it in a creative (or not-so-creative) way, combine it with other objects/clues found in the same way, solve the problem.

By the end of the movie the kid is so well organized that nothing of what the psychopath is going to do feels even remotely threatening because our main character has been provided a solution to EVERYTHING by a giant, black phone shaped, ex-machina.

And here's another problem with the structure: it's not just stakeless and utterly predictable, it's formulaic as hell and so stale it feels like something written 40+ years ago: the kid has a "problem" (he doesn't stand up for himself), goes through some duress, has to overcome the "problem" in order to save his life, gets the girl in the end.

That's literally it. No character development other than the aforementioned, world's oldest narrative arc. The only twist is not entirely relevant to the story. Everything the lowest-hanging-fruit among the audience could have seen coming a mile away happens exactly in the most predictable ways, movie ends.

Once again: the overall execution is good but the material is just too weak, predictable and lifeless to be in any way, shape or form even just remotely interesting.

Still, I'm glad Derrickson made this movie instead of wasting his time and talent on "Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Nothing" (and, yes: unfortunately Sam Raimi endend wasting his time and talent on that marvelturd but that's a different problem).

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021)

Weak and cheesy c-grade horror schlock is still the best adaptation of Resident Evil so far.

[4/10 · 15 July 2022]

This is a bad movie. Unfocused, choppy script, terrible dialogue being read by mostly awful actors, sub-par CGI (still better than the CGI in the older movies, though) and a lackluster direction by Johannes Roberts.

With all that said, this is still way better than any of the Paul W. S. Anderson/Milla Jovovich crap that came before.

At the very least, here the writer/director is somewhat trying to build an atmosphere, to give the movie some sort of visual identity that makes it look like a horror film. Most of the actors are terrible but some of the secondary ones (Logue, McDonough) try to be funny or creepy.

There's also some nice, albeit small, bits of '90s music sprinkled here and there and a run-of-the-mill electronic horror score that, at least, does its job.

Again: it's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination and, if you are even just a casual horror fan, you've seen all of this countless time before and with better execution.

It's not much but it's still better than nothing (Resident Evil, 2002) and more nothing (all of its sequels).

Ms. Marvel (2022)

Standard Marvel Fare

[5/10 · 14 July 2022]

This is pretty much on par with every other marvel product out there: juvenile, shallow, mildly entertaining (at the lowest common denominator of "entertainment"), adequately executed.

I'm having a complete blast reading the reviews labeling this as "childish" or "aimed at younger crowd" - as if all of the other marvel products aren't childish and aimed at the younger crowd.

People complaining that it's "woke" and other such nonsense are right-winged nutjobs who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any kind of entertainment product because they obviously lack the intellectual tools to understand even the most childish of concepts.

If anything, it's nice to see that after 14 years Marvel somehow realized there are other kind of people on this planet rather than just white males (and please, don't start with "but Black Panther/Falcon/Cpt. Marvel/Black Widow because those are literally TWO black guys and two white women out of more than a dozen white male heroes). So that's something - very little and very late, but something.

Everything else is just fine: good lead actress, decent performances, average technical compartment (vfx, editing, camera work and so on), nice-to-good music and sound fx, corny writing, uplifting message.

Nothing terrible and nothing to write home about.

Scream: The TV Series (2015–2019)

A little better and a little worse

[5/10 · 12 July 2019]

This thirs season of the "revived" Scream Tv Show is - much like the previous two - a mixed bag.

It definitely improves in terms of characters' dynamics and development (the little that's there), explore more interesting and complex themes, and goes deeper into the meta stuff, playing with stereotypes, updating the pop culture references and homages, while attempting a reflection on modern days slashers. It's nothing new or ever particularly insightful but it's quite well executed - for a production of this kind, anyway.

Unfortunately, there's also a step back in both the visual and narrative aesthetics. Gone is the attempt at a different look for the killer in favor of a restored, classic Munch's "The Scream" mask and even the narrative framework revolves around a much more "classic" mystery than the previous two seasons.

Dialogues are still kind of bad, the actors are mostly good but have to fight their way through some terrible lines (and do so honourably, for the most part), the overall story, themes and plot are a little less on the nose, although just barely.

It's definitely a different beast, in visuals and narrative, compared to the other seasons but, quality-wise, is essentially on the same level, maybe a tiny little bit better. It still fits pretty well with the franchise as a whole. It's also straight and to the point - 6 episodes, 40 minutes each, and it's done.

If you liked the movies, or the previus entries in the Tv Show, or both, you'll most likely enjoy this is a well.

Pet Sematary (2019)

So many fake reviews it's embarassing...

[2/10 · 10 June 2019]

Not that IMDb has ever been a particularly trust-worthy website, at least for movies reviews, but the amount of obviously fake reviews, not to mention the same reviews being posted twice or more from different (and, sometimes, even from the same) accounts is REALLY embarassing.

As for the movie itself, it's a dud. First of all, is not based on King's novel, as it is obviously a rewrite based on the script of the 1989 film (and, in places, it even tries the shot-for-shot approach) with minor details from the novel added to please the "easiest-to-please-fan". It's not TERRIBLY directed, and the actress playing the little girl is... mostly good (until she isn't anymore) and... that's pretty much all the positives.

Most of the acting is wooden and, clearly, uninspired. It's not even the actors' fault - at least, not entirely: they are served by a piss-poor script with some really terrible, dumbed down, cheesy dialogue that, often times, repeat itself.

The photography is just a trainwreck: mudded, flat, with no sense for the use of color or depth. It's so ugly it reminded me of a bad early '90s tv show.

In terms of story, they stripped away most of the character development, and we're left with a super-streamlined story that goes rushing (and stumbling) to one place to the next without any kind of build up and, thus, without nothing even resembling tension - and characters so underdeveloped that it's almost impossible to relate to them (even if the events described are so dramatic that it should be easy to).

It doesn't abuse jump-scares, which WOULD be a good thing, but the problem is that there's, literally, nothing in their place.

The "twist" they added could've work and it was the most interesting thing in the movie, but they just didn't do anything with it.

The special effects aren't bad but, somehow, in a movie that doesn't use a lot of CGI they managed to make almost every single CGI shot look so obviously fake it was painful to look at.

Castle Rock (2018–2019)

Don't trust the 2s and 3s nor the 8s-9s-10s

[5/10 · 30 August 2018]

So, this show really, really wants to be Twin Peaks with a bit of True Detective - and is neither. It isn't as slow and boring as all the negative reviewers would have believe and it definitely isn't the mesterpiece the ultra-positive reviewers describe it to be.

The technical aspects are all pretty average: the directing is good but essentially plain (except in the 7th and 8th episode, were it gets a little more creative) and cinematography is filter-heavy but okay - the whole thing looks good. Not great, but good.

Music and sound design are pretty average but effective. The editing is nothing to write home about but is serviceable (again, with the exception of episode 7, where it's inspired and interesting).

Acting is all over the place: the big names (Spacek, Skarsgård) deliver, most of the cast waves between decent and a good, a few are pretty bad.

The writing is a uneven: sometimes is good, sometimes is mediocre - quite often it tries to cheat with its fair share of filler and red herrings.

The first 4 or 5 episodes, despite a few good moments, are pretty uneventful. It starts building steam around the 6th. Episode 7th is a pretty great hour of television and - as of right now, with 8 released episodes out of 10 - is the closest it gets to the actual Stephen King's atmospheres.

All things considered, I think the best approach is to wait for all the episodes to be released and then binge-watch it - if you don't have anything else to watch.

Episode 8 was promising enough, so I'll wait for the last two episodes and update the review and the ratings if things change.

Stranger Things (2016–2025)

Sequel done right

[5/10 · 28 October 2017]

As expected, true to his '80s nostalgia nature, the second season of "Stranger Things" takes the sequel path - and it does so in the best possible way: it's definitely in the alley of "Empire Strikes Back" or "Aliens" rather than the trite "more of the same" approach.

The story builds on the previous installment as we find the characters where we left them at the end of the last season. The attention to details, the '80s feeling, the references - that were the trademark of season 1 - are all still there while the character driven narrative moves forward.

The idea of splitting the main characters is a risk that pays off, giving each character room to breath and to grow on their own. The newbies also work, although a couple of them aren't as focused as they could've been.

The story is cohesive and well told, a little darker in places and a little more action-y at times (but not to the point of becoming pointless or annoying) - and it manages to be perfectly self-contained, while still planting enough seeds for future seasons to grow around.

The usual amount of references and homages (with several new ones throw in the mix) prevent it from be really innovative or deeply creative, but that's not a bad thing, here, and the material is very well executed.

Great cast all around, strong performances - although, someone must've told young Finn Wolfhard that he was one of the best actor from the previous season as he tries to overdo himself, here, sometimes going a bit overboard (and, at times, it feels like he's using his character to audition for a young Kylo Ren in the Star Wars franchise). Nothing major, though, and it doesn't subtract from the enjoyment.

All in all, the numerous 10 stars it's getting are definitely over- rating, but it's a solid, well rounded 8/10 experience.

The Bad Batch (2016)

A movie for people who love (real) Cinema

[6/10 · 1 October 2017]

This is a really beautiful film and - most importantly - it's real, actual, solid cinema as opposed to the tons of commercial, repetitive, mainstream crap we're (unfortunately) flooded with. This review could end here, because it's something you have to see for yourself.

There's a caveat, though: as for every real movie, "The Bad Batch" requires you to have the SKILL of watching a film. You have to work *with* the movie in order to enjoy it, which means your brain must be ON. If you are the kind of viewer who thinks movies should be mindless entertainment to switch your mind off for a couple hours, who needs to be guided through a story, hand-holded by expositional dialogue and stereotyped characters, then I strongly suggest you turn to something different: the Fast & Furious franchise, or Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie #17 may be a more apt choice, for you.

Here you'll find strong acting performances, a beautifully crafted narrative that relies on visuals way more than on dialogues, a great soundtrack, a chiseled editing and lots and lots of great small moments, ranging from horrifying to dramatic, from comedic to romantic, from bitterly satiric to endearingly sweet.

It's a great cinematic experience all around which, as cherry on top, also has something to say about the world we live in. So do yourself a favor, watch it, and decide for yourself if you like it or don't :-)

Death Note (I) (2017)

Why a movie?

[4/10 · 25 August 2017]

Why a movie, Netflix? Why not a series? Because, now, we got events -- that should've been epic and have a build up to them -- crammed into 4 minutes and, instead of epic and dramatic, they end up feeling forced and rushed. We got characters development that should've happened during those events and is completely missing. Now there are conflicts that don't pay off because they aren't even established to begin with (and yet they're in the movie because they're central to the story). More than the first half hour of this thing feels like a TRAILER: that's how quick it has to go through a HUGE part of the story.

"Kid finds a book that kills people" is a stupid premise. It's cool, it has potential, but it's stupid. It only worked in the original series because they took the TIME to make it work. To set up the scale, rise the stakes, flesh out the characters and had it all payoff. You can't do that in a movie that's 100 minutes including opening logos and closing credits (there are less than 93 minutes of actual movie).

And, granted, the original series had a LOT of filler (like a lot of anime series do): trimming out the fat, even 6-to-8 1h episodes live action miniseries would've been perfectly fine to adapt it.

Worst thing, though? There's a lot of (potentially) good stuff, in this version - mostly the stuff that has been changed or added to the original narrative - and when it does slow down the pace and take its time to do its own thing it actually works... except, here we are with the same problem again: there isn't enough time for it to properly do its own thing and everything feels crammed. The visual style is good. The leading couple has a little too much of a discount-Twilight feeling to them, but that even kind-of-works, within context. The cast, as a whole, isn't bad either. There are some good performances and, with the right format, the actors could've grown into these characters.

4/10, because eventually it tries to be its own thing, which is great but, overall, it's a mess.

P.S. And why the hell is there a blooper/green screen reel edited in the stylized credits? WTF it has to do with anything?

The Belko Experiment (2016)

Hypocritical and useless

[4/10 · 12 June 2017]

Let's get one thing out the way: this is horror for the masses, in the worst possible meaning of such definition. It's domesticated, neutered, lowest common denominator, watered down horror at its worst and, as such, is a bar lowerer for the whole genre.

With that said, here's a list of adjectives and definitions that passed through my mind while I was watching this: unfocused, half-baked, hypocritical, unrealistic af, lame, predictable, stupid to the point of being downright offensive, heavy handed, useless. Mostly hypocritical (for what it tries to say about "human nature") and useless, anyway.

The only positives are that is generally well acted (with a tragic waste of John C. McGinley) while featuring some beautiful shots (nothing to write home about, though) and it's not shy on gore (for a mainstream movie). These, along with some humor here and there, are the only reason why I'm giving it 4/10 instead of 1.

The story has been done to death in countless other movies, novels, short stories, comic books, TV shows and video games (so, for the geniuses claiming this is a rip-off of danganronpa: yeah, no. That game is as much as rip off of other, better things, than this is). If you want some examples of movies that do the same kind of storyline, only way better than this: "Cube" (1997), "The Experiment" (both the German original, 2001 and the American remake, 2010), "The Mist" (2007) or any adaptation of "Lord of the Flies", really.

The Mummy (2017)

If you like to be treated like an idiot, this sorry excuse for a "movie" might be just right for you

[2/10 · 12 June 2017]

So, it's common knowledge that action movies are, for the most part (like in "99%") lowest common denominator products - and while this fact isn't exactly great, it's not inherently bad either: there IS such a thing as a well written, all around 'good', action movie. This new iteration of "The Mummy" simply isn't one. What it actually IS, instead, is a good summary of everything wrong with (a certain kind of) modern filmmaking and a GLARING example of just how much offensive a (bad) movie can be with its audience.

There are, mainly, a couple of reasons why this movie is insulting, the first one being that it assumes that you - the viewer - are an imbecile, completely devoid of any ability to understand even the simplest of things or, really, to actually think for yourself. The whole (almost) two hours of run-time are SO imbued in exposition - both through visuals and dialogue, often times together - that it feels like the movie is hammering every single concept into your brain and then banging your head against a brick wall, just to make sure you understand. Every single thing is said, shown, explained, discussed and then repeated and explained again.

This leads us to the second aspect in which this movie assume you are completely brain-dead: as soon as you start watching, it's almost like you can hear the producers laughing their butts off - they got your money upfront, now they are perfectly free to serve you a lazy, mediocre product that only exists as advertisement for Universal's "Dark Universe".

There's nothing even remotely memorable, here: not even the action or the special effects are worth mentioning and, in fact, are both a bit underwhelming, for this day and age. It's not that they're bad or terrible - they're just unimpressive and not at all inventive. Once again, the thought process here seems to be "we have your money, we are now free to sell you this crap without even trying to make it good".

Writing, acting performances, editing, score - there isn't the slightest bit of effort in sight in any aspect. The best that can be said about any of these things is calling them "bland".

Now, I don't mean to say that everything must be as good, original, thought-provoking and innovative as the new "Twin Peaks" show or that every movie must be an art-house film - as I said, there are 'good' action movies that DON'T treat their audience like a bunch of intellectually impaired sheep, but this isn't the case.

What is even worse is that, sometimes, this mindless (other than rather pointless) pop-corn flick tries to address serious, very delicate issues of our time (like ISIS) and it does so in the less respectfully, most heavy-handed, clueless (and mildly racist) way possible.

So, all things considered: do yourself (and the world) a solid and have enough respect of your own intelligence NOT to go give any money to this insult.

Twin Peaks (2017)

A delirious, surrealistic nightmare to loose yourself in

[10/10 · 7 June 2017]

Let's get a few things out of the way. If you like to be TOLD a story, rather than having to actively work to figure it out, this show may not be for you.

With that said, don't let yourself be fooled by the negative reviews: most of those are either fake, or coming from people who didn't watch the original show (this is a sequel, not a remake) or from people who - more or less openly - admits they didn't understand what they saw. Spotting the fakes reviews is easy, though: most of those are from users who, conveniently, just registered on IMDb or who keep their own ratings private.

I rated this 10/10. Why? Well, there's the undeniable fact that this is something unprecedented, in TV history, something you don't see everyday and that is bound to widen the horizon of "what can be done" on TV (exactly like the original show did, in the '90s) which - today - is no small feat. It's TV history in the making. But this - the originality, the uncompromising artistic vision - merely accounts for a couple of point out of those 10.

The true value, here, is just how good, and beautiful, this show really is. The visuals are absolutely gorgeous: almost every scene is like a painting, most of the time is build to work both for itself and for moving the plot forward. Sound design, ambient and music are hauntingly beautiful, eerie and dark and the CGI, used sparingly, is subtle and artistic, concurring even more to convey the unsettling and disturbing feelings.

Then there's the acting: a lot could be said, here, but the greatest testament to how good of an actors director Lynch is, it's probably in the work Kyle MacLachlan does with three (but, technically, four) completely different characters. The cast is great, the actors are all on point with their characters (whether they need to be subtle, over the top, deadpan, creepy, wild and so on) but - really - MacLachlan alone is worth the "price of admission" (or the time spent watching).

All of this - of course - is in service of Lynch's vision, of his ability to immerse the audience in a delirious, surrealistic nightmare - a nightmare in which the viewer can get lost and use her/his own intelligence, paying attention to the countless details and figuring things out on herself/himself.

As is the case with Lynch's work - and art, in general - this is first and foremost a multi-layered experience that will reveal new details and aspects after each viewing. It's a 18 hours movie, divided into episodes, that defies definitions.

The Void (I) (2016)

Pretty Good Cosmic Horror

[8/10 · 5 June 2017]

Probably one of the best examples of Lovecraftian concepts and ideas transitioning into film - at least in terms of how faithful it is to those concepts and ideas and to Lovecraft's style. Nice throwback to 80's horror movies, too.

Cast is full of "discount" actors - most notably, discount-Aaron Paul (Aaron Poole) and discount-Malcolm McDowell - with solid performances. Bits and pieces of Carpenter, Fulci, Romero and several others. Great practical effects, terrific creatures design and a satisfying amount of gore.

A Cure for Wellness (2016)

Decent, if a bit long, horror movie with lovecraftian elements

[7/10 · 5 June 2017]

Under the surface of an half-baked attempt at social satire with glossy visuals and a taste for lynchian visions, lies what is - essentially - an old Hammer Gothic horror/drama. Verbinski tries to emulate Lynch - especially in the first half of the movie. He wishes he was Lynch: turns out he isn't. DeHaan gives his best (which is no small feat, he is a terrific actor) while the rest of the cast just stumbles behind him. There's a strong lovecraftian element: not so much in terms of Ancient Gods and Eldritch Abominations, but on the theme of human madness and the unspeakable acts perpetrated in pursuit of forbidden knowledge and unnatural power. Predictable at times and, of the - numerous - good ideas, more than a few are half-formed or not really well executed, but the movie looks good and - even if it is a bit on the long side - is perfectly enjoyable and more than worth a watch. Its worst flaws is in its attempt at being too many things at once and Verbinski trying too hard to steal from others, better, directors and movies (most notably - other than the aforementioned Lynch - Polanski and his Rosemary's Baby).