In Defense of: The Unholy

Wait now, movie critics. Why did this movie get terrible ratings? It really was NOT bad.

Sure, it’s another witch possession movie. What I thought made it clever was that the main character is a rag journalist who had faked miraculous stories several years ago (losing his job in the process). There’s even a plotline that makes it all the way through the movie, which is a win in my book.

And honestly, Jeffrey Morgan works as the gruff journalist who once again ruins the story by faking it (he didn’t really).

Here’s the thing: almost all movies are either a remake or a sequel. Why is it when a movie finally does well with the typical tropes does it get panned? Did it need more gore? Or some twist manufactured so it doesn’t make sense? I mean, how many times has Frankenstein been done over the years?

The plotline does tie up nicely at the end (despite being cheesy). You knew there was going to be a clue that it wasn’t over, though. Which WAS obvious; but it’s OBVIOUS anyway! Like it has to be tricky for it to be enjoyable. (Because that usually works out.)

Recommended for…

Negan fans.