pulikd

If you're looking, for some reason, for a film series that only has one good film, look no further than "Wrong Turn" dating back to 2003, and that's when the only good one was released, the first one. The ones that followed weren't even theatrical releases, they went straight to video, unlike the one released in 2021 that wasn't a part of the established series, it was an attempt to start fresh, a so-called "reboot", and it wasn't good.

This one, however, isn't all that simple. Sure, it relies on cheap violence and sexual activity, like the second, the third and the fourth did before, and if sexual activity isn't necessarily a problem, the excessive, sadistic violence that looks disgusting, rather than scary, is a problem. It is a problem that is rooted, of course, in the budget, but things could have been done...

If there isn't enough budget to make the violence look authentic and scary, then, at the very least, one should not linger on it, but they do linger on it in every "Wrong Turn" outside the first one, the good one. It did not linger on the violent deaths of the characters even though it did have the budget and could afford it, but it chose to focus on the characters instead, and when it came to violence, it paid attention to the characters and how they reacted to someone getting violently murdered, to nail how this whole situation was horrifying and tragic, to make sure it was clear violence was bad, is bad.

The second one, the third one and the fourth one are plagued with cheap violence and are disgusting in that regard, and as for the fifth one here, it isn't immune to that, unfortunately. It still is cheap and disgusting when it comes to violence. But there is a difference, one that elevates it to a somewhat decent level. The story told. To be more exact, one particular character of this story, the one portrayed by Doug Bradley, the actor best known for the "Pinhead" role in the "Hellraiser" horror film series.

He is the villain here, and the three mutant cannibals are also present. And that is the thing. You look at how they look and what they do, and they are clearly bad, but they are mutants, they were born that way, it isn't their fault, nothing else to expect from them, but the character Bradley portrays is a human being, and this human being is a monster no better than the three freaks. He isn't a mutant, he's physically normal and appears mentally normal, but he is the main villain here, he is the worst monster here.

It's not the ones that look scary, it is the one that looks regular but is even worse. And Doug Bradley's performance speaks for itself. And because of that, "Wrong Turn V" is interesting. It isn't as simple as it has a human villain alongside the "monsters" of this horror film series, it has a human villain who dominates them, and with the right approach, this could have challenged the original.

There is no shortage of either vampire movies in general or Dracula movies in particular. And when it comes to Dracula movies, it may be a story that, among other things, has Dracula in it or something like that, or it may be a Bram Stoker's "Dracula" horror novel book to film adaptation. When so, it is basically the same story again and again. The one from the book, of course, only never quite as rich and detailed, even though some come close. But this is something different. Fresh, one can say. It only deals with Dracula being transported from his homeland to England by sea, aboard the ship "Demeter".

If you think "they are going to get it right because there is not much material to work with this time, only a short part of the book and not the whole book", you are wrong. They claim to use the part of the book in question as the source material, but barely use what it has to offer while filling the runtime with material that wasn't in the book. They do have the captain's log but they do not focus on it, and the main characters aren't even original members of the crew, again, an invention, something that wasn't in the book. Also, when they try to mix the supernatural and the realistic, the realism of things may very well raise questions. Long story short, if you're looking for a very faithful adaptation, not a very loose one, this isn't the one for you. But does that make it a bad movie, in general? No, it doesn't.

As a horror film that works with the distance between two places, it isn't bad at all. It may even remind you of the one and only "Alien" from 1979, even though ships from the past and spaceships from a fictional future are different. It has a villain that looks scary and does things that are horrifying, and the fact that he barely speaks only helps build the fear. With the effects and the cinematography it has, it does not look bad, with the actors it has, it is not without emotion. And the plot, although it isn't perfect, is also in no hurry, step by step, and even though there is violence in the film, it isn't "blood and meat" that make things scary here, rather, it is the contrast between human and vampire. It is the fear of the unknown.

Although a supposed documentary, it does not focus on the technical part of things like facts or technique. What it does focus on instead is the climbers themselves, what they go through and how will power is an important thing. And that does not sound like a documentary at all, it sounds like an adventure film. So, "Meru" wants to be both a documentary because it has some real footage and the climbers themselves sharing their experiences talking about their journey in front of the camera, and it also wants to make it seem like a story that is hard to believe, one that belongs in a movie, and with the landscapes and the hardships to endure, sounds like something Hollywood should be desperate to get their hands on.

Will power, determination and "drive" are all interesting, sure, but they account for little without a strong material basis, and that is something "Meru" isn't keen on exploring. Baltasar Kormakur's "Everest", also released in 2015, by the way, was more informative when it comes to the whole rock climbing thing, even though it was a fictionalized account of true events, not a documentary.