Come Play - Take My Hand....

I'm a Horror freak as most of you know which basically means I ingest as much of the genre as I can. Most of you also know that as much as I love the genre, I believe that most horror movies in the 2000's are just garbage. There are exceptions to the rule of course, but for the most part the people these days making these movies are relying solely on jump scares to frighten their audience and have almost completely neglected a good, creepy story. This is the exception.

Based around a young Autistic boy Oliver, this movie gets into the creepy factor almost immediately. This movie is one of the few newer movies that takes the time needed to build a decent story, to use technology we see everyday in a valid and harmonistic way and that uses tropes that are generally not seen in the genre.

By using a children's story book, this movie taps into some primitive protective consciousness making the events that happen frightening without really trying to. The imagery is generally dark and Erie and for once in a new horror flick, there wasn't a tremendous amount of gore. Gore when it's called for is great, but gore just to have it is sloppy film making. Saw is a great example of a film franchise that fell into the trap of being more about the gore and less and less about the story.

There were specific shots that, although aren't unique ideas, come off as a unique take which was refreshing to say the least.

Although very predictable as most horror movies are, the generalist clichés were almost missing, again, a fresh take for a change. Yes, there was jump scares but most were not exactly when you expected them.

The plot was very basic and simplistic, but it worked for the film. I felt that some of the story moved along faster then I would have liked. Like the movie had only 1.5 hours and had to cram everything in, which is kinda a shame. I would have liked to get some more back story on the demon haunting the family. I'd love there to be an accompanying book of lore behind the demon that is only referred to as Larry.

For a new horror movie, I liked it, and I don't say that about many films now-a-days (OMG I'm so old). Yes, it could have been better, every movie can be better. George Lucas said, "Movies are never finished, they are just abandoned", so with that said, see this any way you are able. I regret having not seen this in the theatres now.

Overall score: 7 out of 10 stars

Pros:

- Story was well written.

- Well adapted from the short story.

- A fresh take on creepy scenes.

Cons:

- Missed opportunity on the book or app not actually existing.

- Predictable storyline.

- The story felt rushed at times.

Comments

The Bagman (2024): A Surprising Slow Burn That Defies Expectations

Going into The Bagman , I was fully prepared to sit through a low-budget gorefest, packed with cheap jump scares and predictable plotlines. But to my surprise, what I got was something much more refined—a slow-burn suspense thriller that outshines many bigger-budget projects. The film uses its time wisely, building tension and setting up a compelling atmosphere, while steering clear of the typical pitfalls that drag many horror flicks down. Image by IMDb Slow and Steady Wins the Race This movie doesn’t rush. It takes its time to develop the story, but does so in a way that keeps you mildly hooked. It’s one of those rare films where the slower pacing actually benefits the narrative, allowing each element to breathe and come into focus. You won’t find rapid-fire scares here, but rather a creeping sense of unease that makes you wonder what’s lurking in the shadows. The way The Bagman sets up its "rules"—through a twisted fairy tale—was pure brilliance. By tapping into something...

The Monkey (2025): Don't March to This Drum

I had no idea what I was getting into with The Monkey. I went in more or less blind, but given that it was based on a Stephen King story, I had some hope. With the success of It and even the more mediocre Pet Sematary remake, I figured this could be another solid King adaptation. Man, was I ever misguided. Image by IMDb Aesthetic Confusion: What Year Is It? Right away, something felt off. The film starts in 1999—or at least that’s what it claims—but absolutely nothing in the children’s room or the general set design reflects that era. No Blockbuster VHS tapes, no Nirvana posters, no era-appropriate TV shows, not even the right music. Instead, it all feels straight out of the 80s. Then we meet the boys’ Aunt and Uncle, and we’re suddenly in That 70’s Show . The uncle even has the classic 70’s sideburns. The entire aesthetic is a bizarre mishmash of decades, making it feel like the filmmakers didn’t actually care about immersing the audience in the supposed time period. Image by Th...

Fantastic Four: First Steps – A Cautious Beginning That Barely Walks

Going into Fantastic Four: First Steps , I’ll be honest—I was hesitantly optimistic. Marvel's recent track record hasn’t exactly been confidence-inspiring, and I didn’t know whether this film would add to the pile of forgettables or manage to pull something worthwhile from the rubble. The short version? It’s better than what came before it... but that’s a low bar to clear. Image by Disney Better... But That’s Not Saying Much Yes, this is the best Fantastic Four film so far—but let’s not throw a parade just yet. That’s like saying a sprained ankle is better than a broken leg. It’s still not a good time. This isn’t Infinity War or No Way Home . It’s more like a cautiously made, safe middle-ground that never dares to do anything bold or game-changing. Image by Consequence.net Retro Aesthetic Done Right On the positive side, I liked the unexpected characters that popped in here and there, and I thought the alternative 60s timeline worked surprisingly well. The aesthetic was actually ...

Ratings Central - Movies

Search This Blog