Tag: 2013

Directed by Olatunde Osunsanmi [Other horror films: Within (2005), The Fourth Kind (2009)]

It’s been some years since I’ve seen Evidence, but I recall enjoying it a decent amount, and despite remembering important plot points of the finale, I was looking forward to revisiting this one. Despite not packing the same punch it did when I first saw it, I still feel that Evidence does a decent amount right.

The style of the film is certainly interesting. About 60% of the film is done in the style of found footage, with the other 40% being police investigators watching the footage. Because of this, the movie’s approachable even if you’re not generally into found footage films. Of course, it’s also worth mentioning that some of the film seems a bit much – there’s a sort of freeze-frame thing that happens a couple of times – and the finale does strike me as being a bit too dramatic, but still, it’s fun.

Because I remembered (generally speaking) the ending of this one, I wasn’t surprised by much. I sort of found it funny how the red herrings that are brought up are sort of thrown aside as soon as the perfectly-timed “new” evidence pops up in the videos – it just struck me as awfully convenient. Also, while I enjoy the twist in this one, I sort of wish it had been executed a bit differently, because, as I said above, the finale does feel a tad over-dramatic. I’m also not entirely sure I buy the motive of the antagonist, which is something that perhaps could have been fleshed out more.

Caitlin Stasey (Fear, Inc., Kindred Spirits, All I Need) and Torrey DeVitto (I’ll Always Know What You Did Last Summer, Killer Movie) made for decent focal points, though I have to admit that when neither of them spoke, I couldn’t tell them apart (Stasey’s Australian, so that did turn out to be helpful). Stephen Moyer (The Barrens, The Caller) was good, and though we didn’t see much variety from her, Radha Mitchell (Pitch Black, The Darkness, Rogue, The Crazies) was solid also. Others who merit a mention include Harry Lennix (Cruel Will, Suspect Zero), Svetlana Metkina (Trackman), Nolan Gerard Funk (Bereavement, The Coven), and Barak Hardley (Mockingbird).

Because much of the film was done in the found footage style, there wasn’t really a ton of special effects here. The killer’s design looked grand – imagine a figure in a welder mask with a blowtorch – and that was fun. We did see a kill in which a blowtorch apparently dismembered someone, so that was brutally fun. Generally, though, I feel the movie’s mystery was more interesting than the effects and kills they had going on here.

Evidence isn’t a great movie, and I can understand some of the lukewarm reaction this has gotten from the average person (while I find some of the downright negative reception it’s gotten from critics somewhat questionable), but despite its flaws and a couple of loose ends, I generally had fun revisiting this one. It won’t work for everyone, but personally, I had what the kids call a good time.

7.5/10

Directed by Griff Furst [Other horror films: I Am Omega (2007), Wolvesbayne (2009), 30 Days to Die (2009), Lake Placid 3 (2010), Maskerade (2011), Swamp Shark (2011), Arachnoquake (2012), Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators (2013), Starve (2014), Cold Moon (2016), Trailer Park Shark (2017), Nightmare Shark (2018)]

Well, I thought, as I set this movie to record on my DVR, that Ghost Shark would be a bad movie, but hopefully an entertaining one. And because I’m what people call a genius (or a conceited dick, depending on your point of view), I was pretty close to the mark.

In plenty of aspects, Ghost Shark is laughably bad. The special effects were awful across the board, few of the characters really felt like they had character, the kills were as atrocious as one could imagine, and the story? Well, ludicrous may be the fairest way to describe it.

However, in the depths of atrocity, I can’t deny that Ghost Shark had some charm. Look, I’ve seen a lot of Syfy movies, and a lot of Syfy killer animal movies (be it sharks, alligators, Bering Sea Beasts, what-have-you) and some of them can get mighty repetitive. The 2-Headed Shark Attack series was awful throughout. So when I see something that feels different, even if it’s not executed well, I’m at least minorly pleased.

A good example of this would be Nightmare Shark, which, while certainly flawed, held a potential that few Syfy shark movies held before, and that’s because it was at least different and new, no matter how poor aspects of the execution were. Ghost Shark is nowhere near that level, but it is a bit fresher than plenty of other Syfy films I could name. It’s not lost on me, on a side-note, that these two films have the same director.

The story is awful – a shark gets killed, but before it dies, it winds up in a cave that resurrects those who died there as spirits. Which means, you guessed it, a Ghost Shark. It’s splendid, sure, and the ghostly shark effects are as awful as you can imagine. Not only that, but when it bites people in half, or splits them open from the inside (more on that soon), or gnaws someone’s fingers off, the special effects are absolutely shit.

Wherein lies the entertainment, you might ask? Well, normal Syfy shark movies, even sharks of the multi-headed or Atomic variety, are restrained by their physical being. They’re a physical thing, and as such, can’t go where sharks can’t usually go, unless they use their multiple heads to walk along the sand (God, 5-Headed Shark Attack was such trash).

Naturally, when a shark is instead a spirit, that frees it up a bit. Now it can pop up anywhere water may be. Ah, but not just salt water, which wouldn’t make sense anyway, but fresh water too. Basically, if it’s a source of water, the shark spirit could appear and consume you.

It’s hard to say what the best scene is. Well, perhaps not – a character grabs a plastic cup and fills it with water from a water dispenser. But before he filled the cup, the shark appeared in the tank and got poured into the cup. When the character drinks it, it doesn’t take long until the shark spirit literally splits him in half, emerging the victorious shark spirit that it is.

That’s probably the best scene, and there’s not much competition. True, the shark does appear in at a pool party, it appears as children are playing at a broken fire hydrant, it appears from the puddles caused by fire extinguishers, it appeared as some kids played on a Slip ‘N Slide, it even appeared in a bathtub (shame the character in question didn’t have a lifeguard nearby amiright?). It’s ridiculous and stupid, especially when it can jump from any puddle, or materialise mid-air when it’s raining, but compared to the repetitive nature of so many other shark films, it’s almost a welcomed alteration.

As aforementioned, none of the characters have much character. It’s true that Richard Moll (House, Headless Horseman, Night Train to Terror, Ragewar) had some strong moments, but the script didn’t do him any favors. Thomas Francis Murphy (Ozark Sharks, Sisters of the Plague, Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators) and Lucky Johnson seemed like pure filler, and neither Brooke Hurring nor Shawn C. Phillips (Haunted High) sticks around long enough to leave an impression.

Dave Davis (Ozark Sharks, The Vigil, American Horror House) didn’t seem to have a personality, which I found interesting, and Jaren Mitchell (End Trip) was a mixed bag. I didn’t think that Mackenzie Rosman (Beneath, Nightcomer) did too bad, and though far from stellar, Sloane Coe (Zombie Shark, SnakeHead Swamp) was at least fun.

Which, as terrible as portions of this film were, is a fair description of the film. It can be fun. Awful, yes, but fun. I still think Ghost Shark is far below average, but I’d definitely recommend it over plenty of other Syfy shark attempts, for whatever that might be worth.

5/10

Directed by John Luessenhop [Other horror films: N/A]

It’s been some time since I’ve seen Texas Chainsaw 3D, and I have to admit, time has been kind to it.

Well, moderately speaking anyways. The first time I saw this one, I remember finding it rather unsatisfactory and generic. Perhaps in my old age, I’ve grown a warmer heart, because while this movie does have some big problems (which I will expound on before too long), it’s probably tied for my third-favorite movie in the series.

Following directly from the 1974 classic, and in fact, showing us some choice cuts of that gritty staple of horror, the film shows the aftermath of Sally’s escape, what with police and vigilante hick folk wanting revenge on the savagery of the crimes. The Sawyer family grew considerably from what appeared in the original movie – there’s something like twenty people crammed in that house. Some are played by old hands, such as Gunnar Hansen (who, of course, was the first person to play Leatherface) and Bill Moseley (who played Chop-Top in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2). I didn’t care for how those family members popped out of nowhere, but whateves, it’s dramatic.

Anyhow, one of the babies makes it out of the attack (and I say ‘attack’ because the family, while armed, was willing to give up Leatherface, or Jeb, but before they could, vigilante hick folk decided to redefine ‘justice’), and years later, in what looks like modern-day to this film, say 2012 or 2013, a young woman inherits a house from a previously unknown grandmother, and her and her twenty-something friends – 

Wait.

Now, I was never particularly gifted in mathematics. Truth be told, I was always more a history and English guy. If this character, Heather, was a baby in 1973, in 2012, she would be at least 39. I know that plastic surgery has done a lot for people over the years, but there is absolutely no way that Heather’s character is anywhere close to that. The actress, Alexandra Daddario, would have been 25-26 around the time this was filmed, and if you look at her character and think that she’s almost 40, you’re #wacky.

Some of you out there might think I’m nit-picking, or perhaps suggest that, perhaps, the date of the events of the first movie was just moved up to the mid-1980’s, which wouldn’t be a bad way to get around this. However, we clearly see on police documents and reports that the event happened in September 1973.

That’s a problem. That’s a big problem. That’s a completely avoidable problem. And honestly, that’s just utterly ridiculous. How they didn’t notice this glaring issue when making the movie is beyond me, but it’s one of the biggest issues with the movie.

It’s not the only issue, naturally. This movie is in 3D. Why? Because it probably sells tickets, and more expensive ones, at that. Otherwise, I don’t have a good reason. I don’t believe any of the 3D shots were of any value, and they easily could have not been in 3D and been just as effective. Other movies were doing it at the time; the My Bloody Valentine remake was 3D, as was Saw 3D and The Final Destination. None of them had to be, but capitalism, amiright?????

Perhaps the last of my issues is how they decide to end the film. For most of the movie, Leatherface is the antagonistic force, understandably so. That’s not the case for the final 15 minutes, though. I can’t get into why without giving away spoilers, but I can give you the most cringe quote I’ve heard in years: “Do your thing, Cuz.”

Oh, and there’s a short post-credits scene that’s void of any value, so be warned. I guess some out there might find it funny, but I just found it awful.

Otherwise, the movie’s not that shabby.

Look, I’m a simple man. Give me a character to root for and plenty of dismemberment, and I might have an okay time. Admittedly, likable characters in this film are few and far between, but the gore, 3D or not, was pretty solid. A guy got cut in half with a chainsaw, which was perhaps my favorite scene of the film. Another got attacked and hacked with what looked to be a hatchet. There were scenes of legs and fingers being cut off corpses, a scene of someone going through some mechanical meat grinder thing, another got stabbed with a pitchfork, and naturally, someone was slammed onto a meathook, in classic TCM style.

The gore here was solid, and I definitely appreciated that. For the few likable characters we got (given to us by Alexandra Daddario, Thom Barry, and Richard Riehle), I thought they were of good value. It’s here that I did want to applaud the film for trying something a little different – though I don’t think the execution was that solid, I did like the idea of the power structure of the town becoming the biggest problem toward the end of the movie.

Alexandra Daddario (We Summon the Darkness, Bereavement, Burying the Ex) was decent throughout. Never amazing, and I didn’t care at all where the story took her, but a decent lead all the same. Her friends – played by Trey Songz (apparently some R&B artist I’ve never heard of), Keram Malicki-Sánchez (Cherry Falls), and Tania Raymonde (Deep Blue Sea 3) – were mostly non-entities. Shaun Sipos (The Sandman) also didn’t do that much, and, while nice to see, Marilyn Burns (Sally from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) didn’t add a whole lot either.

Paul Rae (who I know from the two-part season 4 finale of Criminal Minds) did well with a horrible character. Scott Eastwood was whatever, but it was nice to see familiar faces in both Richard Riehle (Hatchet, Mischief Night) and Ritchie Montgomery (Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators, Trailer Park Shark). I had no issues with Dan Yeager’s Leatherface, and Thom Barry was of good value just because his character was actually pleasant.

It’s obvious that I have some problems with this movie, but I want to state again that, as bad as some of the problems are, I didn’t hate this. It was an okay time. It’s not as good as the original movie, nor do I enjoy it as much as Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part III, but I definitely enjoyed it more than films like The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. It’s likely on par with the 2003 remake – neither that film nor this are stellar, but they can be a good way to spend some time, and get the job done.

6/10

Directed by Duane Journey [Other horror films: N/A]

While largely an inoffensive movie (which may itself be an accomplishment, based on the title), Hansel & Gretel Get Baked certainly had potential. The wacky idea of a stoner movie mixed with a horror-themed Hansel and Gretel sounds a lot of fun, and is in fact why I went out of my way to watch this one. As it is, the movie isn’t terrible, but I do think they somewhat squandered some of the potential.

Partially, I’d say this has to do with a couple of unnecessary characters. By a couple, I mean the characters played by Cary Elwes, Reynaldo Gallegos, Lochlyn Munro, Yancy Butler, Eddy Martin, Joe Ordaz, Celestino Cornielle, and David Tillman, along with arguably Bianca Saad. To be sure, most of these individuals didn’t have a lot of on-screen activity, but more to the point, few of them made much of a difference, especially the two police officers (played by Munro and Butler), who appeared twice just to set up a comedic scene, it seems.

As it is, the comedy in the film wasn’t actually overbearing, which was a nice surprise. There are a few elements I found a bit much, such as some pot-controlled zombies, but it’s worth mentioning that they barely appear, and if you close your eyes for half a minute, there’s a good chance you won’t know they’re in the movie (which is how I prefer it). Otherwise, while there’s definitely some comedic elements (including a few rather amusing lines from Lara Flynn Boyle’s character), it’s luckily toned down.

I do have to say something about one of the lines, though: early in the film, girlfriend (Molly C. Quinn) and boyfriend (Andrew James Allen) are talking about some weed the guy got from a sweet, old grandmother in Pasadena. Both of them are quite high, so Quinn’s character begins singing the song “The Little Old Lady from Pasadena.” The guy looks blankly at her, and she says, “You know, the Beach Boys.”

I definitely appreciate that she gets into the classic surf rock that I too grew up on. I do love The Beach Boys. However, and I imagine this is either an in-joke to the common misconception, or perhaps just a joke about how stoned they are, but “The Little Old Lady from Pasadena” isn’t originally sung by The Beach Boys, it’s a song by Jan & Dean (who also did such hits as “Dead Man’s Curve” and “Surf City”). To be fair, The Beach Boys did cover the song live, but even so, I wanted to spend two paragraphs talking about Jan & Dean, who I find deeply underrated.

Back to the movie, though, another lost piece of the puzzle would be Hansel and Gretel. Naturally, they’re brother and sister, played by Michael Welch and Molly C. Quinn, respectively. I think they work pretty well in a brother-sister combo role, but unfortunately, they don’t really do that much together. Most of the film follows Gretel as she deals with her missing boyfriend, and Hansel really doesn’t do that much until the finale, and even then, what he does is quite limited. I just think it’s a shame, as the two of them felt like real siblings, and I would have definitely preferred the two of them working together as opposed to Gretel getting help from another stoner’s girlfriend (Bianca Saad’s character).

Even so, I really enjoyed Molly C. Quinn’s performance. She isn’t an actress I know that well (though I have seen her in We’re the Millers, and she starred in Agnes), but she held her own, and I thought she worked well with both Michael Welch (A Haunting in Cawdor, Before Someone Gets Hurt, Blood Craft, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, The Final Wish, and most importantly, the TV series Joan of Arcadia) and Andrew James Allen (Blood Is Blood, Smiley). Welch had a good performance too; I just wish he did more.

Otherwise, it’s hard to really say anyone else stood out. Certainly Lara Flynn Boyle (The House Next Door) had some funny lines, but I was overall underwhelmed with the story behind her character. Lochlyn Munro (Freddy vs. Jason, The Blackburn Asylum, The Unspoken) was nice to see, but ultimately pointless, as was Cary Elwes (Saw), who only appeared during the opening, and was close to unrecognizable. Bianca Saad was okay, but she really only got perhaps ten minutes of notable screen-time, and that doesn’t really do much to impress me.

When it popped up, the gorier aspects of Hansel & Gretel Get Baked weren’t bad. There was an individual early on who was tied down, has one of his eyes eaten, and a portion of his chest skinned. I can’t say the special effects were great, but I did feel a deal of sympathy for him. Another thing I liked, as ridiculous as it sounds, was a bomb shelter that was used as a growing room – rows and rows (this was a big-ass bomb shelter) of weed certainly made it a place worth investigating.

At this juncture, I should mention that perhaps one of the best ways to consume this movie is shortly after consuming some grade-A bud. Unfortunately, I don’t have any weed on me at the moment, and went in sober. Even so, it’s not a bad film; it’s not good, of course, but at least we avoided awful.

More than anything, I think it was inoffensive and ultimately underwhelming. I don’t think most people would have a bad time with Hansel & Gretel Get Baked, but I’d be somewhat surprised if over half of viewers actively enjoyed it. It’s below average, but it might still be worth a watch if you’re in the right state of mind.

6/10

Directed by Michael Storch [Other horror films: Schism (2020)]

Rather psychological in its approach, Phantom of the Woods is a decent film. It’s actually quite a bit better than I expected, and while I still think it falls around average, I have to say that the film impressed me a bit.

One of the reasons I had this on my list of films to check out is that it’s filmed in Indiana. In fact, it was filmed in the Fort Wayne area, and as I live quite close by (Columbia City representin’), I was definitely interested in seeing this. There’s not many horror films from Indiana – a point I pontificate about in my review for Scarecrow County – so this one sounded like it had potential.

And I enjoyed how they tackled the story. There’s an entity out in the nearby woods, and it makes people see what they fear most – some teenagers and a cop get entangled in figuring out how to defeat it, and things go from there. It’s a lower-budget film, but the effects are generally decent, and while nothing really stands out as far as kills go (aside from maybe a scene involving a scarecrow), I was impressed with most of what I saw.

I was also quite impressed with the performances. I don’t know the budget for the movie, but this didn’t feel like The Night Before Easter or Don’t Go to the Reunion. It felt quite polished, and the performances are a good example of that. Both J.R.S. Storch and Delaney Hathaway did great, and I really enjoyed their budding friendship. Mark S. Esch was great as an old-fashioned Marine Corp police officer – I couldn’t stand him from his first scene, and I appreciated that. Richard Hackel and Matthew Finney were both quite good also.

More than anything, I wanted to like the movie more than I did, but the thing is, while I liked a lot of what they were going for, I question whether it really had to be an hour and forty minutes. The time generally went by quickly, and the pacing wasn’t a big issue, but even so, some portions probably could have been trimmed a bit.

For an ambitious film, though, Phantom of the Woods was a surprise. To be frank, I was expecting something a lot less polished than this, and this movie impressed me. It’s not really a film I think I’d watch all that often, but when it comes to Indiana-based horror, it’s certainly a movie that I’d recommend.

7/10

Directed by Griff Furst [Other horror films: I Am Omega (2007), Wolvesbayne (2009), 30 Days to Die (2009), Lake Placid 3 (2010), Maskerade (2011), Swamp Shark (2011), Arachnoquake (2012), Ghost Shark (2013), Starve (2014), Cold Moon (2016), Trailer Park Shark (2017), Nightmare Shark (2018)]

With a catchy title like Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators, you might wonder where the film goes wrong, and the answer, unfortunately, is in so many ways. Later retitled Alligator Alley (nowhere near as catchy a title, in my view), this film is just not a good movie.

Look, it’s a Syfy movie, so going in, you know you might be in for a somewhat rough time. Even so, the plot of this film is beyond the pale. Bad batches of moonshine have been dumped into the swamps, infecting the alligators. These alligators are then hunted and consumed. And those who eat them slowly turn into alligators themselves. Oh, and for some Louisiana flavor, there’s a long-time family feud between two families, the Doucette’s and the Robichaud’s.

If it had just been a general alligator attack film, and two families who hated each other had to work together to survive, that might be a tolerable story. But they just instead go an utterly ridiculous route and have people turn into alligators, because of course that’s what this movie was missing. It’s such a damn shame, as theoretically, the movie could have had potential.

Jordan Hinson (Living Among Us) was not particularly great here. I mean, she had the accent, so that’s fine, but I just couldn’t get into her character past a certain point, and the same can be said for many of the cast, such as John Chriss, Nicoye Banks, and Thomas Francis Murphy (Ozark Sharks). I do think that Ritchie Montgomery (Trailer Park Shark, Texas Chainsaw 3D) did great – his personality was fun, and his Cajun accent was hella unique. He was easily my favorite performance, and it’s a shame they took his character in a scaly direction.

I mean, what else can you say about Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators? The special effects were pretty terrible throughout (toward the end, one of my least favorite things happened, being blood splatter effect on the camera), the plot is laughably ridiculous (Hinson’s character referring to the alligator as “daddy” cracked me up quite a bit), and the film is a good example of what Syfy has become in more recent years.

When I first saw this film, I think I liked it marginally more, or at the very least, was more amused by it. Now, while I can appreciate the Louisiana setting and some of the elements here, it’s not really a film I’d care to see a third time; it’s just too silly.

5/10

Directed by Kimberly Peirce [Other horror films: N/A]

Every horror commenter has one or two opinions (at least) that go against mainstream thought of horror fandom, and the fact that I’m not a fan of the 1976 adaptation of Carrie is one of them. Now to be fair, it has to do more with the story than the movie itself, but there you go. Here, while I can appreciate the modern-day take, I can’t say I’m much happier with this version.

Carrie is based off Stephen King’s first novel, and as it is his first novel, while I’ve consistently found it interesting in the way it was written, it’s never been a book I’ve really gone back to for enjoyment (unlike a handful of his other novels, such as It or Duma Key). I just don’t find the story all that interesting, and though I do like the spotlight being shone on the dangers of religious mania, I don’t think that’s the focus that most people in-universe would have to a situation like this.

This version follows the book (and original adaptation) pretty nicely, though with a few necessary alterations (such as Ms. Desjardin not slapping Portia Doubleday’s Chris during their punishment runs, or mentioning that the state stopped Margaret White from home-schooling Carrie). That said, it does feel, to me, like a closer version to the book than the 1976 movie, only with an updated feel (such as a far more prevalent use of technology, which made the scene in which Chris and her father were talking to the principal, played by Barry Shabaka Henley, all the better).

The adaptational attractiveness of Carrie does bother me a bit. She might look a little plain here, and she has the necessary awkwardness, but Chloë Grace Moretz is far from ugly, and I find it disappointing that no adaptations want to touch on the fact that Carrie, from the novel, was overweight and, to many people, unattractive. This doesn’t take away from Moretz’s performance, which I thought was pretty good, but just something that bugs me. Moretz does great, especially with her scenes when with Tommy (Ansel Elgort), and you really got the sense that this unhappy girl was happy, finally, for the first time.

I did like Judy Greer as Ms. Desjardin. Greer’s an actress I know from really random things, such as 13 Going on 30 and Jurassic World to Ant-Man and a single episode of The Big Bang Theory, and she does pretty good here in her role. She doesn’t really add anything to the character, but she was a solid presence. The same could be said for Julianne Moore (The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Hannibal). Now, I really did like her performance (and a lot of her dialogue was taken directly from the book, which I loved), but like Greer, I don’t think she really stood out in any spectacular way.

Neither Gabriella Wilde nor Ansel Elgort were great, but I did like the humanity I felt from Elgort. Wilde was decently compelling in her regret, but a face-heel turn like this a week before graduation doesn’t really make up for the times that she and friends made life hell for Carrie in the past. Portia Doubleday was a pretty good Chris, so no complaints there.

One way in which I think the 1976 version was undoubtedly better was during the prom sequence at the end. Maybe it’s because the 1976 movie is such a classic (even if it’s a classic I don’t love), but the prom sequence here just felt sort of shallow and almost tepid. I did like some of the scenes after, such as Carrie stopping that car with her telepathic powers in slow-motion, but overall the finale lacks the feel the 1976 version had, and that dream at the end just felt like a failed imitation of what’s been done better.

If you enjoyed the 1976 version of Carrie, you might enjoy this. You might hate it, also, and find it unnecessary, but since I don’t enjoy the 1976 version that much, it doesn’t really bother me that they made a new version of this. I found this movie passable, and certainly watchable, but still not a type of movie I’d watch for pure enjoyment. I think this movie does some things right, and the 1970’s movie did some things right, but both end up around the same for me.

And I wish I remembered more about the 2002 Carrie TV movie, because, ironically, I actually remember liking that one more than the 1976 version, and thus, more than this version. Until I see it again, though, I’ll refrain from pissing people off.

Carrie is a movie that looks pretty good, and has fantastic production quality and names attached to it, but it’s not a story I ever cared for (be it novel or most adaptations), and as such, I found this below average. Kudos to the guy in the library who shows Carrie how to make videos full-screen, though – he’s perhaps the most stand-up character in the movie.

6.5/10