Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 24, 2021
The True Successor to the Original Film
I am a huge fan of the original, 1984 Bill Murray/Dan Ackroyd/Harold Ramis GHOSTBUSTERS - so much a fan, in fact, that I devoted an entire hour of my podcast, the BANKOFMARQUIS MOVIES PODCAST (which can be found in your favorite Podcast app) last Halloween to this film (Episode #23 to be precise). I found that the next 2 follow-up films - GHOSTBUSTERS 2 and the all-female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few years ago - did not even come close to recapturing the magic of that first film.
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Crow (1994) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Close to the source material (2 more)
Great Cast
A powerful and emotional film
A Powerful Classic
The Crow is one of my all time favourite films as well as one of my all time favourite graphic novels.
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
This Gothic, fantasy action film has a tragic story that's powerful to behold as we witness what the power of revenge can do to a person. However, this isn't your typical revenge plot, because SPOILERS!
Eric Draven, portrayed by the incredible Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee), is actual brought back from the dead as an avenging angel, after he and his fiance were murdered by a group of thugs on Devils Night (the night before Halloween).
If you've read the graphic novel you'll know just how great this film is, and the only downside to it is knowing it was Brandon Lee's last after an accident that happened on set.
However, the film sticks close to the source material, especially since James O'Barr, the creator of the characters and the graphic novel worked closely with the cast and crew of the film to ensure it was done correctly.
The tone of the film is, for obvious reasons, dark but there is still humour in it which lightens the mood and gives you a sense of Eric Draven's mind because let's face it, coming back from the dead with the ability to heal any wound, and the opportunity to get revenge on those who wronged you, it's enough to send a sensible man insane, and we see that shine through Brandon Lee performance with jokes and laughter, whilst still remaining eerily dark and twisted. When the bad guys realise he heals any wounds and can't die...You can see how much Eric enjoys seeing the fear grow in their faces, and as the strong unfolds we learn that the group of thugs who committed the crime, were just pawns to a bigger villain leading a crime syndicate in the city.
We see emotion as Eric tries to find out the truth of what really happened that night, and why he and his fiance lost their lives, and we see him trying to connect to his past through Sarah, a young girl that he and his fiance looked after and cared for. We also see the truth unfold through Officer Albrecht who was in charge of the investigation.
The characters are all brilliantly written, from Sarah's childhood innocence becoming a more mature sense of realising that the world can't always be a happy place, to Eric's lust for revenger and being sidetracked by emotions of his former life, trying to remain a good person whilst committing these acts of murder for revenge.
The music in the film really fits the scenes and the feel of the entire story with bands like The Cure, Pantera, Rage Against The Machine and Stone Temple Pilots among others, its soundtrack is brilliantly dark.
Also the main aspect that you have to love is Brandon Lee in the crow makeup and clothing. He looks menacing, he looks like he has a lust for revenge, most importantly he looks badass! One of the greatest comic book characters in film that I have ever seen, and whilst I was a little wary of the talks to remake this film in 2016/2017, I would be curious to see the character brought to life again and given a fresh look but I don't know if anyone can beat Brandon Lee in that portrayal because he looks incredible.
This film is dark, powerful, moving and poetic and will remain one of my top 5 films of all time. Maybe even top 3.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a comic book movie, especially if you like movies with action and drama with a Gothic overtone.
R.I.P Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I love the Animal Crossing games because for me they are a lot of fun. I really enjoyed Animal Crossing: New Leaf, but I didn't like some of the time constraints that were involved. Plus that Tom Nook really has a racket running the town. I was pretty excited for Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer the more I read about it. Then I started playing it and I absolutely loved it because there are no time constraints and it's so much fun to play. In the game you are an employee of Nook's Homes and design homes for the various animal villagers based on their interests and suggestions. You can also decide where to place a client's home when the map pops up. A mountain home, a beach house, or a desert oasis are just some of the choices. You don't just design homes however. You can also design a variety of buildings for the town such as restaurants, shops, and a school. Dragging and dropping items is a nice change from the pushing and pulling items to move them. This also makes it easier to fix mistakes or undo something. It's also easier to customize colors and patterns and as you progress you can unlock even more items for your designs.
Oh, a cute little cafe design!
You can also decorate the outside of a client's house, choosing a variety of roof colors, house colors, and items for their yard like gardens and swings. You can also revisit clients and do things like a house upgrade or even redecorate their home for them. Another cool thing is the Happy Home Network. You can upload any house or building you've designed and you can visit other people's homes and rate them. You can take pictures of your designs and post them to social media as well showing off your creative skills which is pretty neat too.
You can design an awesome yard for your clients.
There are also themed contests via the Happy Home network such as a candy house or a Halloween house. There are also Amiibo cards which look like Pokemon trading cards and they work exactly the same way that the Amiibo figures do without all that extra bulk. The Amiibo cards work exclusively with the New 3DS and New 3DS XL. If you want to use them with the old 3DS, 3DS XL, and 2DS you can use the NFC Reader/Writer accessory.
After you've designed a couple of homes, you'll get the whole introduction to the Amiibo cards and how to use them as well as having an Amiibo phone in the Nook's Homes office. You'll be prompted to use an Amiibo card and when you do you'll be sent to the client's home where you can design to your heart's content. Each Amiibo card has different characters that you can design for. Another cool feature with these is if you have friends who have Amiibo cards, you can share furniture simply by visiting a client by tapping the Amiibo card to your friend's screen and if you do it twice the character will remember all their furniture. It's a fun way to socialize and get more items for your designs.
A forest of books!
I do wish you had your own house to decorate as all the designing only happens in town or in a client's home. That's not a big deal though because you can design the buildings any way you want and I put a lot of my own personal touches in things like the school and a concert hall. There's also lots to choose from with the designs and items making for a unique and entertaining experience. This is all about creativity and just having a good time with it. I'm still playing the game, trying out all these different things as well as checking out other people's awesome designs. Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer overall is a great game full of endless fun.
Oh, a cute little cafe design!
You can also decorate the outside of a client's house, choosing a variety of roof colors, house colors, and items for their yard like gardens and swings. You can also revisit clients and do things like a house upgrade or even redecorate their home for them. Another cool thing is the Happy Home Network. You can upload any house or building you've designed and you can visit other people's homes and rate them. You can take pictures of your designs and post them to social media as well showing off your creative skills which is pretty neat too.
You can design an awesome yard for your clients.
There are also themed contests via the Happy Home network such as a candy house or a Halloween house. There are also Amiibo cards which look like Pokemon trading cards and they work exactly the same way that the Amiibo figures do without all that extra bulk. The Amiibo cards work exclusively with the New 3DS and New 3DS XL. If you want to use them with the old 3DS, 3DS XL, and 2DS you can use the NFC Reader/Writer accessory.
After you've designed a couple of homes, you'll get the whole introduction to the Amiibo cards and how to use them as well as having an Amiibo phone in the Nook's Homes office. You'll be prompted to use an Amiibo card and when you do you'll be sent to the client's home where you can design to your heart's content. Each Amiibo card has different characters that you can design for. Another cool feature with these is if you have friends who have Amiibo cards, you can share furniture simply by visiting a client by tapping the Amiibo card to your friend's screen and if you do it twice the character will remember all their furniture. It's a fun way to socialize and get more items for your designs.
A forest of books!
I do wish you had your own house to decorate as all the designing only happens in town or in a client's home. That's not a big deal though because you can design the buildings any way you want and I put a lot of my own personal touches in things like the school and a concert hall. There's also lots to choose from with the designs and items making for a unique and entertaining experience. This is all about creativity and just having a good time with it. I'm still playing the game, trying out all these different things as well as checking out other people's awesome designs. Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer overall is a great game full of endless fun.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs starts as three history students Anderson (Gillespie), Nelson (Edrington) and Cory (Carey) failing through college before spring breaks gives them a chance to party some more. When the three friends meet fellow travellers including two hot girls Joey (Malcolm), Kat (Heekin) and Ricky (Gross) they arrange to meet back up on the beach and we continue our adventure with our three friends who find Pleasant Valley.
When the six find themselves being welcomed by the Mayor Buckman (Englund) for a celebration they decide to stay. As the strangers spend more time in the town they start to go missing before learning the truth about the people in the town. Who will make it out alive.
2001 Maniacs is one of those horrors that came out at the perfect time, it was the time when gore and nudity were big in the industry and this does everything needed. The story is pretty simple, strangers arrive in town and welcomed only to learn not everything is as it seems. Sure this is easy to watch but it is also important that nothing becomes over-complicated too.
Actor Review
Robert Englund: Mayor Buckman is the man running Pleasant Valley, he is from a time where the south was still in control meaning he only accepts white people in his town. It isn’t long till we learn his motives as the man who welcomes guests with arms wide open. Robert is always going to be a good lead for a film like this.mayr
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone is the host where the guests are staying. She is welcoming throughout the stay trying to make sure all the women look extra pretty. Lin is good in this role where we get to see the added quirky character.
Giuseppe Andrews: Harper is the charming man of the local town that seduces the women who come to town before finding his own way to kill them. Giuseppe is good in this role as you believe he will be calm and crazy in the same side.
Jay Gillespie: Anderson is the nice guy of the three friends travelling who meets the beautiful Joey where he sees a potential new girlfriend, when he learns what is going on he must try to survive. Jay is solid in this role but it could easily be any of the friends.
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs has a supporting cast which is mostly the victims but also most of the women end up having to do some sort of nudity.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim gives us a film that reaches all the special effects levels and is filled with all the gore and nudity fitting the genre.
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs has a few good one liners when it comes to the kills.
Horror: 2001 Maniacs is gored filled for all of the kills but isn’t suspense filled.
Settings: 2001 Maniacs keeps most of the film in this small town showing how this is more of a tradition rather than mistake.
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs has great effects when it comes to the kills which is important for the film.
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs is one for the horror fans out there to sit down and watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The kills.
Worst Part: No suspense.
Kill Of The Film: Got Milk.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Has one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 27 Minutes
Tagline: The south will rise again!
Overall: Enjoyable horror that pushes the boundaries on kills.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/08/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-2001-maniacs-2005/
When the six find themselves being welcomed by the Mayor Buckman (Englund) for a celebration they decide to stay. As the strangers spend more time in the town they start to go missing before learning the truth about the people in the town. Who will make it out alive.
2001 Maniacs is one of those horrors that came out at the perfect time, it was the time when gore and nudity were big in the industry and this does everything needed. The story is pretty simple, strangers arrive in town and welcomed only to learn not everything is as it seems. Sure this is easy to watch but it is also important that nothing becomes over-complicated too.
Actor Review
Robert Englund: Mayor Buckman is the man running Pleasant Valley, he is from a time where the south was still in control meaning he only accepts white people in his town. It isn’t long till we learn his motives as the man who welcomes guests with arms wide open. Robert is always going to be a good lead for a film like this.mayr
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone is the host where the guests are staying. She is welcoming throughout the stay trying to make sure all the women look extra pretty. Lin is good in this role where we get to see the added quirky character.
Giuseppe Andrews: Harper is the charming man of the local town that seduces the women who come to town before finding his own way to kill them. Giuseppe is good in this role as you believe he will be calm and crazy in the same side.
Jay Gillespie: Anderson is the nice guy of the three friends travelling who meets the beautiful Joey where he sees a potential new girlfriend, when he learns what is going on he must try to survive. Jay is solid in this role but it could easily be any of the friends.
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs has a supporting cast which is mostly the victims but also most of the women end up having to do some sort of nudity.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim gives us a film that reaches all the special effects levels and is filled with all the gore and nudity fitting the genre.
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs has a few good one liners when it comes to the kills.
Horror: 2001 Maniacs is gored filled for all of the kills but isn’t suspense filled.
Settings: 2001 Maniacs keeps most of the film in this small town showing how this is more of a tradition rather than mistake.
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs has great effects when it comes to the kills which is important for the film.
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs is one for the horror fans out there to sit down and watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The kills.
Worst Part: No suspense.
Kill Of The Film: Got Milk.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Has one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 27 Minutes
Tagline: The south will rise again!
Overall: Enjoyable horror that pushes the boundaries on kills.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/08/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-2001-maniacs-2005/
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Poltergeist (1982) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019
The TV People!
When the Freeling family moved into their suburban California home, little did they know what they were getting themselves into! Minor oddities began showing themselves like chairs stacking in the kitchen lights flashing or even being pulled across the kitchen floor. It felt like a "tickle". The situation quickly grows more severe as a tree outside the children's room plunges inside and tries to ingest son, Robbie. Simultaneously, a gateway of sorts opens in the children's room eventually pulling the entire contents into its closet vortex including youngest daughter, Carol Anne.
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Splice (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
I consider myself a pretty well educated horror-movie buff. As a child, my brother lovingly showed me movies like Critters” and Ghoulies, along with the Halloween and Friday the 13th series. Freddy Krueger scared me no more than Ronald McDonald did (and no, I don’t have a fear of clowns). I have pretty much grown immune to horror films and their ilk, so it takes a lot to get a rise out of me. Sadly, like many many others, Splice failed miserably in doing so.
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Darren (1599 KP) rated 5ive Girls (2006) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 5ive Girls starts when one of the student of Father Drake’s (Perlman) school it taken by an evil force leaving only blood stained classroom. With the school closed down on the outside we still see Father Drake trying to help troubled girls with his newest class being Alex (Miller), Mara (Madley), Cecilia (Vnesa), Leah (Mamabolo) and Connie (Quintas).
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 13 Sins (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 13 Sins starts as Elliot Brindle (Webber) about to get married to Shelby (Wesley) and start his own family but because he isn’t as ruthless in his salesman job he loses his job making it difficult to supporting his mentally disabled brother Michael (Graye) and his bitter father (Bower).
Running out of options a chance phone call promises him money for doing something as simple as killing a fly once complete Elliot gets a second phone call with the promise of more money for a task. With two challenges down Elliot get offered a chance to enter into a game to complete in 11 more challenges to get more money that could change his life forever.
When the challenge starts to become very twisted it grabs the attention of Detective Chilcoat (Perlman) but just how far will Elliot will go for the money.
REPORT THIS AD
13 Sins gives us a horror thriller that pushes our character to the limit which is why I do think this is a very enjoyable. I will say it starts out slow and puts the character in a position that you would expect them to take the challenge by not knowing how far they would be pushed. This helps us think this would be hard to say no to. I will say this really pulls you in but I do think the certain moments at the end feel forced.
Actor Review
Mark Webber: Elliot Brindle is a down on his luck salesman who is about to get married, have his own child all while supporting his mentally disabled brother and alcoholic father. When he gets phone call he gets a chance to end all of his money troubles by completing a set of challenges, this will test Elliot to the very limits leaving us to wonder how far he will do. Mark is great in this role making us feel like he really is an average man struggling.
Devon Graye: Michael Brindle is the mentally disabled brother of Elliot who is about to find himself back in a home if his brother doesn’t find money to support him. Devon seems like an important character that just seems to get forgotten through the final outcome of the film.
Rutina Wesley: Shelby is the fiancée of Elliot who is getting ever so upset with Elliot on the day of the challenges because he is coming off distant but her relationship is important to everything that is happening. Rutina is basic in this supporting role because we don’t get the screen time.
Ron Perlman: Detective Chilcoat takes the case that Elliot finds himself causing him to discover what has been happening for years. Ron is solid in this supporting role that has a moment that is worth the wait nearer the end.
Support Cast: 13 Sins has a supporting cast that is included in the game in ways you have to figure out how they are involved.
Director Review: Daniel Stamm – Daniel gives us a thriller that is shocking in places as we just have to see how far we see our character go.
Horror: 13 Sins has gore moments that shock but filled with suspense around the gore.
Thriller: 13 Sins keeps us on edge as we wonder what will happen next in the game.
Settings: 13 Sins doesn’t have the most iconic locations which helps make us think it is in a small city but with the bigger picture of the game doesn’t work.
Special Effects: 13 Sins has great special effects used throughout with the gore factors.
Suggestion: 13 Sins is one for the horror fans to watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final twist.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Would You Rather, Cheap Thrills
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $4 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: You don’t play the game. It plays you.
Overall: Surprisingly entertaining horror thriller keeping us guessing throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/03/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-13-sins-2014/
Running out of options a chance phone call promises him money for doing something as simple as killing a fly once complete Elliot gets a second phone call with the promise of more money for a task. With two challenges down Elliot get offered a chance to enter into a game to complete in 11 more challenges to get more money that could change his life forever.
When the challenge starts to become very twisted it grabs the attention of Detective Chilcoat (Perlman) but just how far will Elliot will go for the money.
REPORT THIS AD
13 Sins gives us a horror thriller that pushes our character to the limit which is why I do think this is a very enjoyable. I will say it starts out slow and puts the character in a position that you would expect them to take the challenge by not knowing how far they would be pushed. This helps us think this would be hard to say no to. I will say this really pulls you in but I do think the certain moments at the end feel forced.
Actor Review
Mark Webber: Elliot Brindle is a down on his luck salesman who is about to get married, have his own child all while supporting his mentally disabled brother and alcoholic father. When he gets phone call he gets a chance to end all of his money troubles by completing a set of challenges, this will test Elliot to the very limits leaving us to wonder how far he will do. Mark is great in this role making us feel like he really is an average man struggling.
Devon Graye: Michael Brindle is the mentally disabled brother of Elliot who is about to find himself back in a home if his brother doesn’t find money to support him. Devon seems like an important character that just seems to get forgotten through the final outcome of the film.
Rutina Wesley: Shelby is the fiancée of Elliot who is getting ever so upset with Elliot on the day of the challenges because he is coming off distant but her relationship is important to everything that is happening. Rutina is basic in this supporting role because we don’t get the screen time.
Ron Perlman: Detective Chilcoat takes the case that Elliot finds himself causing him to discover what has been happening for years. Ron is solid in this supporting role that has a moment that is worth the wait nearer the end.
Support Cast: 13 Sins has a supporting cast that is included in the game in ways you have to figure out how they are involved.
Director Review: Daniel Stamm – Daniel gives us a thriller that is shocking in places as we just have to see how far we see our character go.
Horror: 13 Sins has gore moments that shock but filled with suspense around the gore.
Thriller: 13 Sins keeps us on edge as we wonder what will happen next in the game.
Settings: 13 Sins doesn’t have the most iconic locations which helps make us think it is in a small city but with the bigger picture of the game doesn’t work.
Special Effects: 13 Sins has great special effects used throughout with the gore factors.
Suggestion: 13 Sins is one for the horror fans to watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final twist.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Would You Rather, Cheap Thrills
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $4 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: You don’t play the game. It plays you.
Overall: Surprisingly entertaining horror thriller keeping us guessing throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/03/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-13-sins-2014/