Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1968) in Movies
Feb 19, 2018
Grave Errors
Hammer's third Dracula movie is arguably inaccurately titled, but then 'Dracula Has Thawed Out of a Moat' wouldn't look good on the poster. Busybody monsignor finds lingering legends of Dracula affecting church attendance, decides to exorcise Castle Dracula, ends up resurrecting Dracula himself, wins Counter-productive Stupid Idea Award for 1906.
What follows is a fairly routine gothic melodrama without much to distinguish it; Christopher Lee goes through the motions manfully. Chief wrinkle in the story is the fact that the juvenile male lead (who has an unfortunate resemblance to a young Hugh Grant) is an atheist, which is a problem when it comes to vampire hunting (he can't wave a crucifix with sufficient conviction, apparently). Not-bad climax doesn't really compensate for lack of good ideas in the rest of the film.
What follows is a fairly routine gothic melodrama without much to distinguish it; Christopher Lee goes through the motions manfully. Chief wrinkle in the story is the fact that the juvenile male lead (who has an unfortunate resemblance to a young Hugh Grant) is an atheist, which is a problem when it comes to vampire hunting (he can't wave a crucifix with sufficient conviction, apparently). Not-bad climax doesn't really compensate for lack of good ideas in the rest of the film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Winnie the Pooh (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Everyone’s favorite “tubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff” is back in this sweet and lovable adaption of the beloved classic series written by A.A. Milnes. For those who aren’t familiar with the story of this beloved bear, young Christopher Robin and his active imagination creates the world of 100 Acre Woods along with its adorable characters, Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, Rabbit, Owl, Kanga and her son Roo, Eeyore and the bouncy Tigger.
As with most of the stories in the series, Winnie the Pooh is on an adventure in search of his favorite tasty treat: honey. As he begins scouring the woods for honey, he runs into his friend, the depressed donkey, Eeyore. Eeyore’s tail has gone missing and so begins the contest, to see which one of the 100 Acre Woods residents can come up with the best solution for a new tail for Eeyore. The prize, to Winnie the Pooh’s excitement, is a pot of honey! While they are on the hunt to help Eeyore find a new tail, the gang realizes that Christopher Robin has been kidnapped by a terrifying creature called the “Backson.”
With a run time of just over an hour, I was very impressed with the amount of substance this movie had. I was very glad that Disney stayed true to the way I remembered these characters from my childhood. The movie is instantly engaging with the story beginning in Christopher Robin’s bedroom and continues on by capturing the creative magic of being a child. Many people will probably write this movie off, due to its simplicity, however sometimes it’s the simple things in life that can provide such a wealth of charm, fun and beauty.
As with most of the stories in the series, Winnie the Pooh is on an adventure in search of his favorite tasty treat: honey. As he begins scouring the woods for honey, he runs into his friend, the depressed donkey, Eeyore. Eeyore’s tail has gone missing and so begins the contest, to see which one of the 100 Acre Woods residents can come up with the best solution for a new tail for Eeyore. The prize, to Winnie the Pooh’s excitement, is a pot of honey! While they are on the hunt to help Eeyore find a new tail, the gang realizes that Christopher Robin has been kidnapped by a terrifying creature called the “Backson.”
With a run time of just over an hour, I was very impressed with the amount of substance this movie had. I was very glad that Disney stayed true to the way I remembered these characters from my childhood. The movie is instantly engaging with the story beginning in Christopher Robin’s bedroom and continues on by capturing the creative magic of being a child. Many people will probably write this movie off, due to its simplicity, however sometimes it’s the simple things in life that can provide such a wealth of charm, fun and beauty.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Scars of Dracula (1970) in Movies
Nov 17, 2020
Start From Scratch
Scars of Dracula- is the sixth Dracula film from Hammer and fifth starring Christopher Lee. Its a re-introducting to Dracula, even though its the six one in the Hammer franchise. Its also takes place after Taste, so im not sure why their did do a re-introducting. Anyways
The plot: Bat's blood hits Dracula's (Christopher Lee) ashes, and he rises again to fight a couple (Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanley) looking for trouble.
It also gives Lee more to do and say than any other Hammer Dracula film except its first, 1958's Dracula.
This film breaks the continuity maintained through the previous entries in the Hammer Dracula series: whereas at the end of the preceding film, Taste the Blood of Dracula, the Count met his end in a disused church near London, this film opens with a resurrection scene set in Dracula's castle in Transylvania, with no explanation of how his ashes got there (although, they might have been returned from England, as a contingency, by the young acolyte from the prologue of Dracula A.D. 1972). Furthermore; in Scars of Dracula, the Count has a servant named Klove, played by Patrick Troughton; in the third film of the series, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula has a servant named Klove (played by Philip Latham) who appears to be a different character, though identically named. The disruption of continuity caused by Scars of Dracula reflects the fact the film was originally tooled as a possible reboot of the series in the event Christopher Lee elected not to reprise the role of Dracula.
The British Film group EMI took over distribution of the film after Warner Bros., Universal Pictures and other American studios refused to distribute it in the U.S. It was also the first of several Hammer films to get an 'R' rating.
Its a good film.
The plot: Bat's blood hits Dracula's (Christopher Lee) ashes, and he rises again to fight a couple (Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanley) looking for trouble.
It also gives Lee more to do and say than any other Hammer Dracula film except its first, 1958's Dracula.
This film breaks the continuity maintained through the previous entries in the Hammer Dracula series: whereas at the end of the preceding film, Taste the Blood of Dracula, the Count met his end in a disused church near London, this film opens with a resurrection scene set in Dracula's castle in Transylvania, with no explanation of how his ashes got there (although, they might have been returned from England, as a contingency, by the young acolyte from the prologue of Dracula A.D. 1972). Furthermore; in Scars of Dracula, the Count has a servant named Klove, played by Patrick Troughton; in the third film of the series, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula has a servant named Klove (played by Philip Latham) who appears to be a different character, though identically named. The disruption of continuity caused by Scars of Dracula reflects the fact the film was originally tooled as a possible reboot of the series in the event Christopher Lee elected not to reprise the role of Dracula.
The British Film group EMI took over distribution of the film after Warner Bros., Universal Pictures and other American studios refused to distribute it in the U.S. It was also the first of several Hammer films to get an 'R' rating.
Its a good film.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Sleepy Hollow (1999) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020 (Updated Apr 20, 2020)
Sleepy Hollow is one of those films that I will always love. I first saw it when I was 13, when DVDs were still pretty new, and I would watch it over and over again.
It's just about creepy enough to offer itself to horror fans, and has the right amount of Tim Burton campiness to still appeal to younger audiences (not too young mind, plenty of blood flying about).
Johnny Depp plays Ichabod Crane, a constable sent from New York to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of bizarre murders, at the tail end of the 1700s.
The townsfolk are gripped with fear, convinced that the murders are the work of the fabled Headless Horseman, but Ichabod is certain that there's a less supernatural involvement behind the scenes.
The 18th Century setting is perfect for Burton's gothic style. The whole film is draped in a misty asthethic, lending it a cold and dreary atmosphere.
This is further complimented by Danny Elfman's incredible church-organ-heavy score.
The Horseman himself looks ghostly and makes for some unforgettable shots as he chases down and decapitates his way through the cast.
Said cast is a heavy duty one as well. Johnny Depp is front and centre, pretty much just being typical Johnny Depp, but it works wonders with Ichabod's almost mad-scientist character.
The rest of the cast boasts the likes of Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough, Richard Griffiths, Christopher Lee, Jeffrey Jones... It's an impressive list.
Some of the acting is a bit overboard at times (looking at you Christopher Walken) but it kind of adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.
The effects are pretty solid as well. Burton's approach to using a large amount of practical effects is admirable, and what CGI is used is subtle enough to not show the films age.
Despite it cheesyness, Sleepy Hollow manages to be both a dark and fun horror adventure, that I always enjoy watching and remains a highlight in Tim Burton's resume.
It's just about creepy enough to offer itself to horror fans, and has the right amount of Tim Burton campiness to still appeal to younger audiences (not too young mind, plenty of blood flying about).
Johnny Depp plays Ichabod Crane, a constable sent from New York to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of bizarre murders, at the tail end of the 1700s.
The townsfolk are gripped with fear, convinced that the murders are the work of the fabled Headless Horseman, but Ichabod is certain that there's a less supernatural involvement behind the scenes.
The 18th Century setting is perfect for Burton's gothic style. The whole film is draped in a misty asthethic, lending it a cold and dreary atmosphere.
This is further complimented by Danny Elfman's incredible church-organ-heavy score.
The Horseman himself looks ghostly and makes for some unforgettable shots as he chases down and decapitates his way through the cast.
Said cast is a heavy duty one as well. Johnny Depp is front and centre, pretty much just being typical Johnny Depp, but it works wonders with Ichabod's almost mad-scientist character.
The rest of the cast boasts the likes of Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough, Richard Griffiths, Christopher Lee, Jeffrey Jones... It's an impressive list.
Some of the acting is a bit overboard at times (looking at you Christopher Walken) but it kind of adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.
The effects are pretty solid as well. Burton's approach to using a large amount of practical effects is admirable, and what CGI is used is subtle enough to not show the films age.
Despite it cheesyness, Sleepy Hollow manages to be both a dark and fun horror adventure, that I always enjoy watching and remains a highlight in Tim Burton's resume.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Voyagers (2021) in Movies
Apr 7, 2021
The classic novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding is not only a beloved classic but has been assigned reading for generations of students since it was first published in 1954. The book has been adapted into plays and films over the years and remains a chilling and poignant cautionary tale.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
Merissa (11612 KP) rated Joshua and the Magical Forest (Portallas #1) in Books
Mar 16, 2018
Joshua and the Magical Forest (Portallas #1) by Christopher D. Morgan
Joshua and the Magical Forest is the first book in the Portallas series, and we are introduced to Joshua. He is a young man who wants to become a Woodsman. However, he has been having strange dreams in which a figure he believes to be his missing father, is being tortured and is in constant pain. He decides he needs to find his father before he continues with his plan to become a Woodsman. On his way through the Forest, he finds his best friend Andrew as a travelling companion, plus Galleon, one of the last Imps. Along the way, they meet Sarah, a young girl who talks, and giggles, way too much.
This was an easy read of a book, suitable for younger ages too. I personally would have preferred more information about the characters, and the tribal systems in place. For example, the 'uniforms' of the different castes - who wears what, what colours are involved? Are the colours of the castes the same in all the villages, or does each village have different colours too? If they are separate, how are they incorporated within each village?
This IS the first book in a series, and so it does end on a cliffhanger. The writing is very good, the pacing is smooth, and the transitions from one scene to the next flow nicely. There were no editing or grammatical errors that disrupted my reading flow, barring the questions above. I enjoyed reading this story, and would recommend it to younger fans of Fantasy.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and my comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
This was an easy read of a book, suitable for younger ages too. I personally would have preferred more information about the characters, and the tribal systems in place. For example, the 'uniforms' of the different castes - who wears what, what colours are involved? Are the colours of the castes the same in all the villages, or does each village have different colours too? If they are separate, how are they incorporated within each village?
This IS the first book in a series, and so it does end on a cliffhanger. The writing is very good, the pacing is smooth, and the transitions from one scene to the next flow nicely. There were no editing or grammatical errors that disrupted my reading flow, barring the questions above. I enjoyed reading this story, and would recommend it to younger fans of Fantasy.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and my comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Triumph
Brutal. Spectacular. Emotional. These are just some of the adjectives you could use to describe Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Dunkirk. The director of Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento and Interstellar is one of the greatest film-makers working today and he raises the bar once again with this bleak tale from World War II.
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
Nick doonan (0 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Apr 4, 2018
A movie you only watch once.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay so i was sceptical about watching this movie and have put off watching it for quite some time but, as it is Christopher Nolan and the IMDb ratings seem to show above average on it, i thought i'd give it a chance seen as i loved all his previous movies.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated Gretel & Hansel (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Grim not Grimm
396. Gretel & Hansel. Do you remember the tale of Hansel and Gretel by the the Grimm Brothers? Well throw it away, because it's 2020 and Girls Rule so Gretel's name is first! Hell, Hansel didn't even make the movie poster! And maybe because its her fault for getting kicked out of their mother's house for not getting a damn job cause times are tough, so get out, and take your brother with you. Thanks mom! At this point, it seems instead of going towards civilization they go further into the woods, tripping on shrooms at one point. After walking for a bit, hunger kicks in, so they break into a house, nice, cause there's a table with a bunch of food to be seen. They get busted of course by the owner, Holda, who takes pity on them and invites them in and feeds em. Too fatten em up to eat them right? Like I said this is 2020, not 1812!! This time Gretel learns the ways of the witch, there's creepy figures in black roaming the woods at night Hansel learns to chop down trees, he's in a trance, whats going on?? In the end, I think it's an arthouse movie about a young girl coming of age, equipped with first period and all, shot like those old Christopher Lee horror movies of the 70's. Also suffers from the Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves curse, everyone has the same accent, except the freaking star of the movie Gretel! HaHa! Filmbufftim on FB
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) in Movies
Nov 24, 2021
Hellbound is a sequel that stands next to it's groundbreaking predecessor as a proud equal. It's quick turnaround and it's returning crew ensure that it feels like a smooth continuation, and both films could easily be watched back to back.
The visuals go bigger and harder this time around. A longer portion of the movie is spent in the cenobites' hellish dimension, and it's a striking and otherwordly design. Once again, Pinhead and his cronies don't take up too much screentime, ensuring that they're presence is impactful. The narrative does explore the background of these antagonists a little more, but thankfully, doesn't completely destroy the mystery surrounding them, and provides an interesting plot device a bit later on.
The main villain is Dr Channard, a psychiatrist who has a dangerous obsession with the legend of the Lament Configuration. Kenneth Cranham steals the show in the role, and makes for a memorable bad guy, especially during the last half. He also has the best line - "and to think... I hesitated" - definitely a top moment in the history of horror.
Clare Higgins is another highlight, as she is in the first Hellraiser, her character delightfully more sinister than before.
Once again, Hellbound boasts some top class practical effects, contributing to its unique aesthetic, and Christopher Young absolutely smashes it out the park with another incredible music score.
Both Hellraiser and Hellbound are astonishing examples of how excellent, nightmarish, and beautiful this genre can be, and will always be hailed as high points. Great stuff.
The visuals go bigger and harder this time around. A longer portion of the movie is spent in the cenobites' hellish dimension, and it's a striking and otherwordly design. Once again, Pinhead and his cronies don't take up too much screentime, ensuring that they're presence is impactful. The narrative does explore the background of these antagonists a little more, but thankfully, doesn't completely destroy the mystery surrounding them, and provides an interesting plot device a bit later on.
The main villain is Dr Channard, a psychiatrist who has a dangerous obsession with the legend of the Lament Configuration. Kenneth Cranham steals the show in the role, and makes for a memorable bad guy, especially during the last half. He also has the best line - "and to think... I hesitated" - definitely a top moment in the history of horror.
Clare Higgins is another highlight, as she is in the first Hellraiser, her character delightfully more sinister than before.
Once again, Hellbound boasts some top class practical effects, contributing to its unique aesthetic, and Christopher Young absolutely smashes it out the park with another incredible music score.
Both Hellraiser and Hellbound are astonishing examples of how excellent, nightmarish, and beautiful this genre can be, and will always be hailed as high points. Great stuff.