Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bad Lieutenant (1992) in Movies
Oct 25, 2020
Great Character, Bad Movie
A corrupt cop is forced by a mob boss to pay off his debt or be killed. Hailed as a cinematic classic, Bad Lieutenant truly failed to grab me for a number of different reasons. It misses the mark in a number of ways.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 9
Love him or hate him The Lieutenant (Harvey Keitel) is one memorable character. Every scene he is in is unpredictable as you have no idea what he’s going to do next. While I was more on the hate side of things, I envied him at the same time. The Lieutenant does whatever he wants and gives zero shits about it.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
A few scenes caught my eye here and there, but there was nothing overall that really stood as overly memorable or powerful. Visually I was unimpressed as it felt like a film just going through the motions. I wasn’t as immersed in the scenes or the world as I had hoped.
Conflict: 5
We know the conflict, we know what’s at stake, yet I can’t feel the true threat of it throughout the film. My other problem was The Lieutenant is such an awful guy that you don’t really care what happens to him. As a result, the conflict then becomes just mediocre.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 3
Pace: 5
You see a lot of casual day-to-day over the course of the movie which slows things down tremendously. Despite Lieutenant’s antics, the movie moves in a really boring fashion. You never get the sense that you are progressing towards anything.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 2
I was hoping for some kind of redemption here, but was extremely overwhelmed. When the credits roll, I was more depressed than anything. It solidified what was a crappy movie in my opinion.
Overall: 52
Don’t believe everything you read. All the critics said this movie was amazing, but it falls well short of today’s offerings. Then again, I’m willing to admit that I could be the one that’s wrong. Give it a shot at your own discretion.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 9
Love him or hate him The Lieutenant (Harvey Keitel) is one memorable character. Every scene he is in is unpredictable as you have no idea what he’s going to do next. While I was more on the hate side of things, I envied him at the same time. The Lieutenant does whatever he wants and gives zero shits about it.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
A few scenes caught my eye here and there, but there was nothing overall that really stood as overly memorable or powerful. Visually I was unimpressed as it felt like a film just going through the motions. I wasn’t as immersed in the scenes or the world as I had hoped.
Conflict: 5
We know the conflict, we know what’s at stake, yet I can’t feel the true threat of it throughout the film. My other problem was The Lieutenant is such an awful guy that you don’t really care what happens to him. As a result, the conflict then becomes just mediocre.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 3
Pace: 5
You see a lot of casual day-to-day over the course of the movie which slows things down tremendously. Despite Lieutenant’s antics, the movie moves in a really boring fashion. You never get the sense that you are progressing towards anything.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 2
I was hoping for some kind of redemption here, but was extremely overwhelmed. When the credits roll, I was more depressed than anything. It solidified what was a crappy movie in my opinion.
Overall: 52
Don’t believe everything you read. All the critics said this movie was amazing, but it falls well short of today’s offerings. Then again, I’m willing to admit that I could be the one that’s wrong. Give it a shot at your own discretion.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Die Hard (1988) in Movies
Jan 16, 2021 (Updated Jan 17, 2021)
The casting (3 more)
Plot
SFX
Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman in general
Welcome to the party pal!
In 1988 Hollywood Gambled on a lesser known tv star for it's high budget action thriller.
Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!
Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.
Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.
Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.
Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.
Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)
. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.
. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.
. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).
. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)
. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.
. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.
Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!
Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.
Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.
Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.
Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.
Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)
. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.
. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.
. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).
. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)
. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.
. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) in Movies
Jan 23, 2021
From Dusk Till Dawn is a good enough Tarantino/Rodriguez style crime caper for the first hour, carried by its cast and polar opposite characters. On one side of the coin, there's the wholesome Fuller family, played by Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis, and Ernest Liu. These characters are the good guys if you will, with just enough development given to be on their team. The other side of the coin serves us the Gecko brothers, played by George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino, two criminals who take the Fullers hostage on their way to Mexico. These two are fucking deplorable, Richie (Tarantino) being a dangerous psychopath with no regard for human life, and Seth (Clooney) just being an arrogant asshat who flits between condemning his brothers behaviour and encouraging it. They're so damn unlikable, but when the five characters are together, it provides us with an electric dynamic, one where they end up depending on eachother to survive.
Other than that, it's good enough. Sure it's stylish, but it's not a scratch on Pulp Fiction or Desperado in what's it's trying to be.
But then the twist kicks in, and Christ does this movie ascend to near greatness. When the Fullers and Geckos arrive in Mexico and head to The Titty Twister bar, shit hits the fan pretty quick, and it goes from good enough crime movie, to all out sticky gross gore filled vampire horror show in seconds. The mix of practical effects and CG is wonderfully balanced, and the aesthetic is hugely reminiscent of Evil Dead II. It's no surprise to see Greg Nicotero among the credits.
This second half is just a whole boat of fun, and is the reason why FDTD is rightly considered a cult classic. Tarantinos screenplay is great (casually ignoring the fact he wrote himself into a scene where he could have Salma Hayeks toes in his mouth) and the addition of actors such as Hayek, Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin, Tom Savini, and Fred Williamson for this tongue-in-cheek, splatter fest of a third act is the cherry on top.
From Dusk Till Dawn is a blast for sure. Its stumbles here and there, but is another fine entry in the Robert Rodriguez catalogue.
Other than that, it's good enough. Sure it's stylish, but it's not a scratch on Pulp Fiction or Desperado in what's it's trying to be.
But then the twist kicks in, and Christ does this movie ascend to near greatness. When the Fullers and Geckos arrive in Mexico and head to The Titty Twister bar, shit hits the fan pretty quick, and it goes from good enough crime movie, to all out sticky gross gore filled vampire horror show in seconds. The mix of practical effects and CG is wonderfully balanced, and the aesthetic is hugely reminiscent of Evil Dead II. It's no surprise to see Greg Nicotero among the credits.
This second half is just a whole boat of fun, and is the reason why FDTD is rightly considered a cult classic. Tarantinos screenplay is great (casually ignoring the fact he wrote himself into a scene where he could have Salma Hayeks toes in his mouth) and the addition of actors such as Hayek, Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin, Tom Savini, and Fred Williamson for this tongue-in-cheek, splatter fest of a third act is the cherry on top.
From Dusk Till Dawn is a blast for sure. Its stumbles here and there, but is another fine entry in the Robert Rodriguez catalogue.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
"is that a monkey?"
There are very few things that I respect more than a movie that is unafraid to embrace its own stupidity. Kong: Skull Island has thinly written characters, extreme tonal dissonance, bad dialogue, and a complete and utter disregard for the talents of Oscar-winning actress Brie Larson, but it’s absolutely glorious in its brazen spectacle. Its thin characters and tonal dissonance don’t matter as much because it thoroughly commits to its premise, and it seems like the movie is one ridiculous–but hilarious–visual gag after another. The bad dialogue is all part of the fun. It’s not trying to be something it’s not, and that’s something I appreciate in any movie, especially a nostalgia-laced B-movie blockbuster about a giant ape.
Some might draw connections to the time era explored or the interplay between man and nature, but the movie succeeds at its main goal: entertain the hell out of the audience. Actors like Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson are (pretty) pieces of cardboard in this, but seasoned vets like Samuel L. Jackson and John C. Reilly thoroughly understand what it is they’re being asked to do. They both ham it up big time, with Vogt-Roberts’s visual flourishes adding to their performances in beautiful ways throughout. They both give pitch perfect performances that are 100% appropriate for their roles, and Reilly in particular becomes the heart and soul of the story. As an actor, the best response to a movie like this is to embrace the ridiculous, and Jackson and Reilly certainly do.
However, the ridiculous can sometimes move aside to reveal a visually stunning movie with a large heart. The production design is gorgeous, and the classic shot–a character whose back is turned to us, staring up in awe and fear at Kong–is breathtaking. The movie itself has that type of reaction to its own character, to its own force of nature, looking up in wonder and childish glee as Kong destroys another piece of its surroundings. This is big, bold, and confident filmmaking, precisely because the movie understands what it’s not.
Some might draw connections to the time era explored or the interplay between man and nature, but the movie succeeds at its main goal: entertain the hell out of the audience. Actors like Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson are (pretty) pieces of cardboard in this, but seasoned vets like Samuel L. Jackson and John C. Reilly thoroughly understand what it is they’re being asked to do. They both ham it up big time, with Vogt-Roberts’s visual flourishes adding to their performances in beautiful ways throughout. They both give pitch perfect performances that are 100% appropriate for their roles, and Reilly in particular becomes the heart and soul of the story. As an actor, the best response to a movie like this is to embrace the ridiculous, and Jackson and Reilly certainly do.
However, the ridiculous can sometimes move aside to reveal a visually stunning movie with a large heart. The production design is gorgeous, and the classic shot–a character whose back is turned to us, staring up in awe and fear at Kong–is breathtaking. The movie itself has that type of reaction to its own character, to its own force of nature, looking up in wonder and childish glee as Kong destroys another piece of its surroundings. This is big, bold, and confident filmmaking, precisely because the movie understands what it’s not.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated A Hero Born in Books
Sep 25, 2019
Great plot but translation isn't so good
Despite what you read on the covers (e.g. “It’s like Lord of the Rings”) ignore all of that. It’s nothing like it. There is no epic adventure to fight evil (at least not yet - this is the first book in the series). So before you get all disappointed in what the outside quotes say, completely disregard them.
Translation will always be an issue with these kinds of books. It’s hard to keep it true and coherent. Sometimes you get a good one that is completely comprehensible and makes the reading a journey well worth it. Then you get one like A Hero Born and it’s not the greatest translation. The writing style is dry and hard to get into. Sometimes it gets too descriptive, but other times it’s not descriptive enough. It can be a little long winded at times and it drags - I’m not too sure if that’s because of the run on writing style or the plot itself. Either way by the last third of the book it was getting to be tiresome.
Speaking of the plot, it was good! There’s plenty of action, a bit of intrigue here and there. If you don’t mind something akin to Chinese historical fiction movies with classic martial arts fighting then perhaps this is for you. There are small elements of political intrigue which keeps the story interesting, however keep in mind there are a lot of characters to keep track of, but luckily there is a cast of characters in the beginning of the novel so that should not be a problem. This isn’t a book to put down and turn back to later, this needs to be consistently read you will easily lose your place.
There’s also several plot arcs that happen throughout the novel so it’s best to keep track of them carefully. They are all intertwined at some point. It’s a great plot and if it wasn’t for the horrible writing/translation.
I don’t know if I could recommend this one to anyone. I would under normal circumstances but the writing just do the plot justice. It’s too bad, it would have been such a great series.
Translation will always be an issue with these kinds of books. It’s hard to keep it true and coherent. Sometimes you get a good one that is completely comprehensible and makes the reading a journey well worth it. Then you get one like A Hero Born and it’s not the greatest translation. The writing style is dry and hard to get into. Sometimes it gets too descriptive, but other times it’s not descriptive enough. It can be a little long winded at times and it drags - I’m not too sure if that’s because of the run on writing style or the plot itself. Either way by the last third of the book it was getting to be tiresome.
Speaking of the plot, it was good! There’s plenty of action, a bit of intrigue here and there. If you don’t mind something akin to Chinese historical fiction movies with classic martial arts fighting then perhaps this is for you. There are small elements of political intrigue which keeps the story interesting, however keep in mind there are a lot of characters to keep track of, but luckily there is a cast of characters in the beginning of the novel so that should not be a problem. This isn’t a book to put down and turn back to later, this needs to be consistently read you will easily lose your place.
There’s also several plot arcs that happen throughout the novel so it’s best to keep track of them carefully. They are all intertwined at some point. It’s a great plot and if it wasn’t for the horrible writing/translation.
I don’t know if I could recommend this one to anyone. I would under normal circumstances but the writing just do the plot justice. It’s too bad, it would have been such a great series.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
I am the eater of worlds, and of children.
IT Chapter2 feels like a ride you've been sat on all day, immense fun but a tad repetitive & a little tiresome after awhile. Now I can't remember the book much to be honest so im going by the films here alone & I personally think its all one giant metaphor for child suicide with the clown just being one big easy to relate to combined metaphor for fear, grief, guilt, betrayal, depression, negativity, loneliness, abuse, anxiety, torment, worry, instability & stress of growing up in a town thats had a lot of tragic events happen in it & in a world where things such as bullying, paedophilia, murder, arson, death, accidents, incest, mental illness, fear mongering, love and having no friends can also be against you and playing on your mind. Watching it in this way is where the real terror lies & everything had a logical explanation to it too (especially watching both films back to back) making these films that much more powerful, relatable, meaningful & heartwarming. Watching these kids/adults unite together to battle everything life throws at them to conquer & overcome the darkness while still trying to have fun and enjoy youth at the same time is so empowering and uplifting its just a shame this new film retreads to much old ground feeling a tad to repetitious of what we've seen before already. That being said the character drama is great & theres clear love here for the source material/films from the past that have since become cult classic. A genuine nostalgia vibe is present here too with the film feeling very lost boys meets the goonies & theres even elements of evil dead & john carpenters the thing too. Acting is fantastic with a near flawless adult cast & special effects for the most part are creative, creepy, disgusting & good looking with a few seemingly rushed bits here & there. Its a good film dont get me wrong it just feels like it needs a trim as the lulls at times can make your mind float off elsewhere (especially during some side plots). Overall IT 2 has great depth, fun horror elements & well developed characters its just a shame the comedy & repetitive structure spoil it.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 20, 2019
All style, too much substance
I'm a big Tarantino fan and I really wanted to like this film, but I'm afraid like The Hateful Eight before it, I just found it far too rambling and long winded.
Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here with the classic Hollywood era, I just think it has been poorly executed. Instead of going for 'all style, no substance', Tarantino appears to have gone for all style and too much substance. Visually this film looks stunning, the set design and the costumes look amazing. The cast are brilliant, there's some great supporting faces in this and truly marvellous turns from Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly it's these two that kept my attention for the nearly 3 hour run time. The ideas are good and the dialogue is good, the problem is that there's just way too much of it. Every scene has been dragged out way past the point of enjoyment, and there are so many pointless scenes in this that could easily have been cut out without affecting the barely there plot. He could've at least replaced some of these dragged out scenes with more of a main plot, especially as the only thing interesting about this film was the small bits with the Mansons in it.
I'm starting to wonder if Tarantino is becoming a bit complacent. He's known for his dialogue, but this is just too much. Its worrying when a 3 hour film gets interesting 15 minutes towards the end, which is the only time we see any in depth violence. Had this film been cut by at least an hour, it would've actually been very good. It's just a shame it had to ramble on for so long.
I've marked this higher than I probably should, but only because there is a lot to appreciate in this film and some wonderful performances, it just should've been in a much shorter runtime. I havent seen The Hateful Eight since it was on at the cinema as I can't bear to put myself through it again, and I'm afraid to say it's the same for this.
Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here with the classic Hollywood era, I just think it has been poorly executed. Instead of going for 'all style, no substance', Tarantino appears to have gone for all style and too much substance. Visually this film looks stunning, the set design and the costumes look amazing. The cast are brilliant, there's some great supporting faces in this and truly marvellous turns from Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly it's these two that kept my attention for the nearly 3 hour run time. The ideas are good and the dialogue is good, the problem is that there's just way too much of it. Every scene has been dragged out way past the point of enjoyment, and there are so many pointless scenes in this that could easily have been cut out without affecting the barely there plot. He could've at least replaced some of these dragged out scenes with more of a main plot, especially as the only thing interesting about this film was the small bits with the Mansons in it.
I'm starting to wonder if Tarantino is becoming a bit complacent. He's known for his dialogue, but this is just too much. Its worrying when a 3 hour film gets interesting 15 minutes towards the end, which is the only time we see any in depth violence. Had this film been cut by at least an hour, it would've actually been very good. It's just a shame it had to ramble on for so long.
I've marked this higher than I probably should, but only because there is a lot to appreciate in this film and some wonderful performances, it just should've been in a much shorter runtime. I havent seen The Hateful Eight since it was on at the cinema as I can't bear to put myself through it again, and I'm afraid to say it's the same for this.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Last Shark (1981) in Movies
Aug 15, 2020
An oldie... but a goodie?
A large great white shark is interested in taking part in a seaside town's regatta but the major would rather it stayed away so that paying visitors can go about safely spending their money.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that The Last Shark was actually Jaws 2, evidently Universal thought that too and sued the life out of them. With such a familiar feeling to the whole affair it felt like it went fairly quickly, at times, too quickly. More than once I noted down that the scenes just left out the "boring bits" of filler and went straight to the nitty-gritty of moving the story along... this is what we always wanted right? In practice, it's not all that great.
When I started my notes with "what is this, windsurfing porn?" (I started writing watersports fun but quickly changed that.) I felt confident of daft enjoyment ahead, and with a great transition from music over the scene to music in the scene... well, it won me over. Then to throw in the classic line "absolutely nothing is going to happen!" Wow!
Being serious about this review feels a little over the top, so let's just say it's exactly what you'd expect from a film ripping off another film when both those films are shark films... there were corners cut obviously and it tries to keep to the action side more than anything else but that works pretty well considering.
My note taking highlight (after windsurfing porn) was the fact that the local butcher must have been doing a roaring trade, forget all those BBQs, he was selling slabs of meat for bait hand over fist. At least someone came out of all of this better off!
You've got teens in peril, people hunting the shark, a local politician with bigger things on his mind, and that's what makes Jaws... sorry... that's what makes Jaws... DAMNIT... The Last Shark! That's what makes The Last Shark an amusing watch.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-last-shark-movie-review.html
A large great white shark is interested in taking part in a seaside town's regatta but the major would rather it stayed away so that paying visitors can go about safely spending their money.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that The Last Shark was actually Jaws 2, evidently Universal thought that too and sued the life out of them. With such a familiar feeling to the whole affair it felt like it went fairly quickly, at times, too quickly. More than once I noted down that the scenes just left out the "boring bits" of filler and went straight to the nitty-gritty of moving the story along... this is what we always wanted right? In practice, it's not all that great.
When I started my notes with "what is this, windsurfing porn?" (I started writing watersports fun but quickly changed that.) I felt confident of daft enjoyment ahead, and with a great transition from music over the scene to music in the scene... well, it won me over. Then to throw in the classic line "absolutely nothing is going to happen!" Wow!
Being serious about this review feels a little over the top, so let's just say it's exactly what you'd expect from a film ripping off another film when both those films are shark films... there were corners cut obviously and it tries to keep to the action side more than anything else but that works pretty well considering.
My note taking highlight (after windsurfing porn) was the fact that the local butcher must have been doing a roaring trade, forget all those BBQs, he was selling slabs of meat for bait hand over fist. At least someone came out of all of this better off!
You've got teens in peril, people hunting the shark, a local politician with bigger things on his mind, and that's what makes Jaws... sorry... that's what makes Jaws... DAMNIT... The Last Shark! That's what makes The Last Shark an amusing watch.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-last-shark-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Teens of Elm Street are dying in their sleep and all the clues are pointing to a past that no one remembers.
This is the remake of the 1984 classic slasher film of the same title and, I have to admit I’ve been putting off watching it for a while and I have to admit I was quite surprised by it.
The story line is mostly the same as the original film, the teens of Elm Street start to have nightmares about a strange, burnt man in a tatty green and red jumper, a brown fedora and glove with knives on the fingers. As their dreams start to get worst the teens begin to die in real life. As they investigate what is happening Nancy, Quentin and Kris come across photos of them all in pre school but none of them remember having met that young.
The 2010 ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ is darker than the original and is not a direct remake. It still has a few familiar scenes, including the bath tub scene but the story focuses more on what happened between Freddy and the young children of Elm Street even questioning whether Freddy was innocent. Unlike the original film, Freddy is punishing the children for what they said about him, not their parents for killing him.
If you haven’t seen any of the original films then the remake is a good film and the only complaint I have is that Freddy isn’t Freddy. It seems that the Freddy in this version is meant to be more serious than the one in the original but they still have him crack the odd joke, often one from the original film and it doesn’t quite work, it seems like this Freddy is trying to do an impression of the original one. I’m not too sure if this would affect anyone who hasn’t seen the other films.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is a good, standard slasher whose story deviates slightly from the original in a way that actually adds to the world it’s set in.
This is the remake of the 1984 classic slasher film of the same title and, I have to admit I’ve been putting off watching it for a while and I have to admit I was quite surprised by it.
The story line is mostly the same as the original film, the teens of Elm Street start to have nightmares about a strange, burnt man in a tatty green and red jumper, a brown fedora and glove with knives on the fingers. As their dreams start to get worst the teens begin to die in real life. As they investigate what is happening Nancy, Quentin and Kris come across photos of them all in pre school but none of them remember having met that young.
The 2010 ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ is darker than the original and is not a direct remake. It still has a few familiar scenes, including the bath tub scene but the story focuses more on what happened between Freddy and the young children of Elm Street even questioning whether Freddy was innocent. Unlike the original film, Freddy is punishing the children for what they said about him, not their parents for killing him.
If you haven’t seen any of the original films then the remake is a good film and the only complaint I have is that Freddy isn’t Freddy. It seems that the Freddy in this version is meant to be more serious than the one in the original but they still have him crack the odd joke, often one from the original film and it doesn’t quite work, it seems like this Freddy is trying to do an impression of the original one. I’m not too sure if this would affect anyone who hasn’t seen the other films.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is a good, standard slasher whose story deviates slightly from the original in a way that actually adds to the world it’s set in.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Impractical Jokers: The Movie (2020) in Movies
May 28, 2020
Fans of truTV’s Impractical Jokers should know what the show is all about. “Scenes of graphic stupidity among four lifelong friends who compete to embarrass each other.” The show first aired on truTV back in 2011 and has had 8 successful seasons so far. Now jokers Joe, Sal, Q and Murr are headed to the big screen in Funny or Die’s Impractical Jokers: The Movie.
Picture this, Staten Island 1994 at a Paula Abdul concert. The jokers at this point are cocky “youngsters”. Having always had great confidence they decide to break into the concert as security guards. While inside, Joe has the crazy idea of being a hype man for Abdul. After interrupting the show, Abdul becomes enraged and chaos breaks out. Now 25 years later after the success of their show; Abdul happens apon the group and being a big fan, offers the guys three tickets to her next show/party in Miami. Then the guys realize that there are four of them and only three tickets. What better way to settle this than to go head to head with eachother in their classic embarrassing challenges. As per usual if one refuses to do anything the other guys tell them to do or say they loose. So the four of them embark on a hilarious and chaos fueld cross country road trip.
After being a huge long time fan, it was hard to see the guys in a semi scripted project. I am by no means saying it was not enjoyable but just different. The challenges though were a step up from the regular show and were really funny. Being huge fan myself, I was able to pick up on all the easter eggs hidden throughout the film. Though I prefer the show to the movie I was happy with it none the less. Fans and newbies alike should give the film a chance to see them in a different light. If you are new to the jokers and have seen the film; hopefully now you’ll take the time to watch the TV show on truTV and laugh your ass off! Impractical Jokers: The Movie is available to own on Digital now. Go see it!
3 out of 5
Picture this, Staten Island 1994 at a Paula Abdul concert. The jokers at this point are cocky “youngsters”. Having always had great confidence they decide to break into the concert as security guards. While inside, Joe has the crazy idea of being a hype man for Abdul. After interrupting the show, Abdul becomes enraged and chaos breaks out. Now 25 years later after the success of their show; Abdul happens apon the group and being a big fan, offers the guys three tickets to her next show/party in Miami. Then the guys realize that there are four of them and only three tickets. What better way to settle this than to go head to head with eachother in their classic embarrassing challenges. As per usual if one refuses to do anything the other guys tell them to do or say they loose. So the four of them embark on a hilarious and chaos fueld cross country road trip.
After being a huge long time fan, it was hard to see the guys in a semi scripted project. I am by no means saying it was not enjoyable but just different. The challenges though were a step up from the regular show and were really funny. Being huge fan myself, I was able to pick up on all the easter eggs hidden throughout the film. Though I prefer the show to the movie I was happy with it none the less. Fans and newbies alike should give the film a chance to see them in a different light. If you are new to the jokers and have seen the film; hopefully now you’ll take the time to watch the TV show on truTV and laugh your ass off! Impractical Jokers: The Movie is available to own on Digital now. Go see it!
3 out of 5