Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Evil Dead II (1987) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
A Blood Fest
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Evil Dead II- is a great and fantasic sequel to the oringal movie. It is horrorfying, terrorfying, creepy, spooky, funny, chilling, thrilling and so much more. You got to thank Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell. Those two togther are unstoppable.
Lets talk about the plot: The second of three films in the Evil Dead series is part horror, part comedy, with Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) once again battling horrifying demons at a secluded cabin in the woods. After discovering an audiotape left by a college professor that contains voices reading from the Book of the Dead, Ash's girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler) becomes possessed by evil spirits that are awakened by the voices on the tape. Ash soon discovers there is no escaping the woods.
The movie opens with a brief (and altered/reimagined/truncated) recap of the first movie. Ash Williams and his girlfriend, Linda, take a romantic vacation to a seemingly abandoned cabin in the woods. While in the cabin, Ash plays a tape of archaeologist Raymond Knowby, the cabin's previous inhabitant, reciting passages from the Book of the Dead, Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, which he has discovered during an archaeological dig. The recorded incantation unleashes an evil force (also known as the Kandarian Demon) that kills and later possesses Linda, turning her into a "deadite". Ash is then forced to decapitate his girlfriend with a shovel and bury her near the cabin.
The gore in this movie is overtop, so much blood and gore in this movie. This movie is were ash gets his chainsaw hand. Also Groovy.
I love this movie and the other movies as well.
Also Ash and his Oldsmobile land in the year 1300 AD. He is then confronted by a group of knights who initially mistake him for a deadite, but they are quickly distracted when a real one shows up. Ash blasts the harpy-like deadite with his shotgun and is hailed as a hero who has come to save the realm, at which point he breaks down and screams in anguish. Which sets up to Army of Darkness.
I would highly reccordmend watching this film and the others.
Lastly shout to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review correct.
Lets talk about the plot: The second of three films in the Evil Dead series is part horror, part comedy, with Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) once again battling horrifying demons at a secluded cabin in the woods. After discovering an audiotape left by a college professor that contains voices reading from the Book of the Dead, Ash's girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler) becomes possessed by evil spirits that are awakened by the voices on the tape. Ash soon discovers there is no escaping the woods.
The movie opens with a brief (and altered/reimagined/truncated) recap of the first movie. Ash Williams and his girlfriend, Linda, take a romantic vacation to a seemingly abandoned cabin in the woods. While in the cabin, Ash plays a tape of archaeologist Raymond Knowby, the cabin's previous inhabitant, reciting passages from the Book of the Dead, Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, which he has discovered during an archaeological dig. The recorded incantation unleashes an evil force (also known as the Kandarian Demon) that kills and later possesses Linda, turning her into a "deadite". Ash is then forced to decapitate his girlfriend with a shovel and bury her near the cabin.
The gore in this movie is overtop, so much blood and gore in this movie. This movie is were ash gets his chainsaw hand. Also Groovy.
I love this movie and the other movies as well.
Also Ash and his Oldsmobile land in the year 1300 AD. He is then confronted by a group of knights who initially mistake him for a deadite, but they are quickly distracted when a real one shows up. Ash blasts the harpy-like deadite with his shotgun and is hailed as a hero who has come to save the realm, at which point he breaks down and screams in anguish. Which sets up to Army of Darkness.
I would highly reccordmend watching this film and the others.
Lastly shout to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review correct.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated House of Dracula (1945) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
Get The Gang All Together: The Crossover II
House of Dracula- was a direct sequel to House of Frankenstein, and continued the theme of combining Universal's three most popular monsters: Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange), Count Dracula (John Carradine), and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.).
The plot: This monster movie focuses on the iconic vampire, Count Dracula (John Carradine), and Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney), better known as the Wolf Man. Both beings of the night are tired of their supernatural afflictions, so they seek out Dr. Franz Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) for cures for their respective curses. While trying to aid the imposing creatures, Edelmann himself develops a transformative condition, adding to the many ghouls lurking around the foreboding landscape.
The working titles for the film were Dracula vs. the Wolf Man or The Wolf Man vs. Dracula.
Although Glenn Strange appears as the Monster in most of the film, footage of Chaney as the Monster from The Ghost of Frankenstein and Boris Karloff from Bride of Frankenstein was recycled; Karloff appears in a dream sequence, while Chaney, as well as his double Eddie Parker, are seen in footage in a fire scene.
Strange recounts that a scene with the Monster stuck in quicksand was particularly arduous for him. On top of three hours of getting into makeup, Strange spent the rest of the day buried in cold sand, including during the lunch break, and was so cold by midafternoon that he could barely feel his legs. Lon Chaney Jr. attempted to help Strange keep warm by passing him a bottle of scotch, with the result that Strange was so drunk that after getting out of costume and makeup, he had difficulty dressing himself in his street clothes. Chaney's drinking contributed to his reputation as being difficult to work with, and probably was the reason Universal let him go after the film was completed.
The film, which was the seventh Universal film to feature Frankenstein's monster, as well as the fourth with Count Dracula and the Wolf Man, was a commercial success, but was one of the last Universal movies featuring Frankenstein's monster, vampires, and werewolves, with the exception of the comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), in which all three appear.
Its a fun entertaing horror film starring the universal monsters.
The plot: This monster movie focuses on the iconic vampire, Count Dracula (John Carradine), and Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney), better known as the Wolf Man. Both beings of the night are tired of their supernatural afflictions, so they seek out Dr. Franz Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) for cures for their respective curses. While trying to aid the imposing creatures, Edelmann himself develops a transformative condition, adding to the many ghouls lurking around the foreboding landscape.
The working titles for the film were Dracula vs. the Wolf Man or The Wolf Man vs. Dracula.
Although Glenn Strange appears as the Monster in most of the film, footage of Chaney as the Monster from The Ghost of Frankenstein and Boris Karloff from Bride of Frankenstein was recycled; Karloff appears in a dream sequence, while Chaney, as well as his double Eddie Parker, are seen in footage in a fire scene.
Strange recounts that a scene with the Monster stuck in quicksand was particularly arduous for him. On top of three hours of getting into makeup, Strange spent the rest of the day buried in cold sand, including during the lunch break, and was so cold by midafternoon that he could barely feel his legs. Lon Chaney Jr. attempted to help Strange keep warm by passing him a bottle of scotch, with the result that Strange was so drunk that after getting out of costume and makeup, he had difficulty dressing himself in his street clothes. Chaney's drinking contributed to his reputation as being difficult to work with, and probably was the reason Universal let him go after the film was completed.
The film, which was the seventh Universal film to feature Frankenstein's monster, as well as the fourth with Count Dracula and the Wolf Man, was a commercial success, but was one of the last Universal movies featuring Frankenstein's monster, vampires, and werewolves, with the exception of the comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), in which all three appear.
Its a fun entertaing horror film starring the universal monsters.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Get Out (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
ritten and directed by Jordan Peele, “Get Out” is not so much an actual horror film but more of a dark comedy. The plot is filled with political undertones, spotlighting awkward racial interactions that are shadowed by systemic inequality.
Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) and Rose Armitage (Allison Williams) are a vibrant young couple living in the city. He’s a photographer. Not sure what she does. He’s black. She’s white. After dating for four months, Rose convinces Chris to go on a trip to meet her parents. Chris is apprehensive at first and skeptical about how her parents will react to meeting their daughter’s black boyfriend. Rose laughs that off and everything seems fine as they head to the country.
From this point forward the film starts to build in creepiness. It almost has the feel of an M. Night Shayamalan movie like “The Village.” As the plot develops, the audience knows they are supposed to be suspecting something creepy and sinister hiding behind images of normalcy. So everything begins to take on this feel. Rose’s family lives in a creepily perfect mansion in the country. They have a creepily quiet black groundskeeper and a creepily happy black maid.
Fortunately, two things save this film from becoming a hokey Shyamalan style disappointment. The plot is executed in a comedic fashion and it isn’t completely predictable.
The entire film balances a creepy-funny style. Moments of white people awkwardly trying to appear not-racist also build a suspenseful feeling that something darker is behind the surface.
Rose’s mom Missy (Catherine Keener) specializes in hypnosis. It quickly becomes clear that Missy is using mind control tactics to basically enslave black people. Under her spell, her victims take a psychological fall into a dark abyss and are left in a robotic state. It would have been nice if this aspect of the plot was given more screen time.
The film picks up pace when Rose’s parents host a “family” get together that actually turns out to be essentially a “slave” auction. It almost takes too much time to get to this point in the plot. A few more moments, and it would begin to feel like trudging through a repetitious build up. From here forward, it becomes pretty fast paced as Chris desperately tries to escape a horrific fate.
“Get Out” probably won’t actually scare anyone, but it is highly entertaining in a very dark way.
Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) and Rose Armitage (Allison Williams) are a vibrant young couple living in the city. He’s a photographer. Not sure what she does. He’s black. She’s white. After dating for four months, Rose convinces Chris to go on a trip to meet her parents. Chris is apprehensive at first and skeptical about how her parents will react to meeting their daughter’s black boyfriend. Rose laughs that off and everything seems fine as they head to the country.
From this point forward the film starts to build in creepiness. It almost has the feel of an M. Night Shayamalan movie like “The Village.” As the plot develops, the audience knows they are supposed to be suspecting something creepy and sinister hiding behind images of normalcy. So everything begins to take on this feel. Rose’s family lives in a creepily perfect mansion in the country. They have a creepily quiet black groundskeeper and a creepily happy black maid.
Fortunately, two things save this film from becoming a hokey Shyamalan style disappointment. The plot is executed in a comedic fashion and it isn’t completely predictable.
The entire film balances a creepy-funny style. Moments of white people awkwardly trying to appear not-racist also build a suspenseful feeling that something darker is behind the surface.
Rose’s mom Missy (Catherine Keener) specializes in hypnosis. It quickly becomes clear that Missy is using mind control tactics to basically enslave black people. Under her spell, her victims take a psychological fall into a dark abyss and are left in a robotic state. It would have been nice if this aspect of the plot was given more screen time.
The film picks up pace when Rose’s parents host a “family” get together that actually turns out to be essentially a “slave” auction. It almost takes too much time to get to this point in the plot. A few more moments, and it would begin to feel like trudging through a repetitious build up. From here forward, it becomes pretty fast paced as Chris desperately tries to escape a horrific fate.
“Get Out” probably won’t actually scare anyone, but it is highly entertaining in a very dark way.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A family is forced to live in silence while hiding from creatures that hunt by sound.
When the trailer for this one was running I honestly thought I was going to be scared witless. It made me so uneasy that I was seriously contemplating not going to see it. I don't mind watching horror films, but I feel a lot more comfortable about it when I'm at home in a brightly lit room.
I sucked it up though and went anyway figuring that having a double bill with something I knew would definitely entertain me would be an easy way to calm my nerves.
We start the film 89 (was is 89? I've got a brain like a sieve) days into the events of A Quiet Place. The monsters are here, and those that are left are doing their best to stay quiet and survive. I've already reached a point where I am a little grumbly. When it announced where it was in the story I was hoping for some kind of jumping timeline showing you a before and after style tale... because surely they're not just going to gloss over the whole "how" of the aliens coming to Earth... Oh.
I can't really fault the bit in the middle of the film. I found it quite enjoyable. There are lots of questions that you wonder about, that I always wonder about in apocalyptic movies. But that's where you have to give them leeway for artistic license I guess.
The part of the story that this film tells is good, and you can follow the journey of the family understanding everything even with the limited dialogue. There's some superb acting at work from everyone involved and I've been recommending it to anyone that asks about it.
With quite a few of us in the cinema it was amusing to see everyone's reaction throughout the movie. Every time someone crinkled a packet or opened a fizzy drink there were noticeable pauses as if we'd all just thought "Oh my god that was too loud" before realising that it's just a movie we're watching.
The main reason this one gets a three star rating and not a four is not only for the lack of origin story but for what I consider to be a cheesy ending suitable for a comedy action film and not what I had been to see. The locked and loaded ending was the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a Guardians Of The Galaxy movie where the end credit are punctuated by shots of our heroes going into battle. A perplexing end.
When the trailer for this one was running I honestly thought I was going to be scared witless. It made me so uneasy that I was seriously contemplating not going to see it. I don't mind watching horror films, but I feel a lot more comfortable about it when I'm at home in a brightly lit room.
I sucked it up though and went anyway figuring that having a double bill with something I knew would definitely entertain me would be an easy way to calm my nerves.
We start the film 89 (was is 89? I've got a brain like a sieve) days into the events of A Quiet Place. The monsters are here, and those that are left are doing their best to stay quiet and survive. I've already reached a point where I am a little grumbly. When it announced where it was in the story I was hoping for some kind of jumping timeline showing you a before and after style tale... because surely they're not just going to gloss over the whole "how" of the aliens coming to Earth... Oh.
I can't really fault the bit in the middle of the film. I found it quite enjoyable. There are lots of questions that you wonder about, that I always wonder about in apocalyptic movies. But that's where you have to give them leeway for artistic license I guess.
The part of the story that this film tells is good, and you can follow the journey of the family understanding everything even with the limited dialogue. There's some superb acting at work from everyone involved and I've been recommending it to anyone that asks about it.
With quite a few of us in the cinema it was amusing to see everyone's reaction throughout the movie. Every time someone crinkled a packet or opened a fizzy drink there were noticeable pauses as if we'd all just thought "Oh my god that was too loud" before realising that it's just a movie we're watching.
The main reason this one gets a three star rating and not a four is not only for the lack of origin story but for what I consider to be a cheesy ending suitable for a comedy action film and not what I had been to see. The locked and loaded ending was the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a Guardians Of The Galaxy movie where the end credit are punctuated by shots of our heroes going into battle. A perplexing end.
EasterBunnyKiller (31 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Saw this before starting my shift the Saturday of opening weekend. I would have rated this higher if it hadn't hurt my fanboy feelings as much as it did, but I am of two minds about this movie.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Visually, it's stunning. The differences in the color palette between the teenage and adult version of the Losers Club and the tunnels beneath the house on Neibolt street was great, just like in the first movie. Andy Muschietti did a great job capturing the frenetic dread during the final conflict with Pennywise. The acting is great. And I'm very pleased at how effective the movie is with horror in the light, instead of relying o the dark for tension.
The dialogue is fun and Bill Hader knocked it out of the park. I enjoyed the departure from the source material in regard to the specifics of the final confrontation, which changed the specifics, but managed the retain the theme and feeling of the book's conclusion.
Now the bad:
At times, It: Chapter Two felt like a high concept comedy starring Bill Hader. Now I understand and appreciate the character of Ritchie and his wisecracking timbre, but at times, it felt a bit much and took me out of the tension of the story.
I wasn't a huge fan of some of the characterisations of the adult versions of the characters. Specifically, Eddie and Mike. For Mike, one would have thought that given the he is the entire reason the the Losers reunite, he would have had some kind of plan better than "get everyone together and hope that's enough." The way he tries to convince them all to stick around and fight It seems contrived, considering that the film very much moves away from the idea of Bill being the leader of the group.
As far as Eddie, I felt like it was a missed opportunity with regard to him facing his fears. In the novel, adult Eddie is still very much ruled by his own fears. It didn't feel like a very big moment for him to overcome his fear in the movie, because there is very little prove-up for his fearfulness as an adult.
There were certain things I wasn't very much of a fan of, like the abbreviated inclusion of Henry Bowers, and the decided lack of a cosmic Turtle, but all in all, it was an enjoyable movie, with a couple of legitimately creepy scenes on it.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 24, 2020
Lacking in Christmas spirit
Lost at Christmas is a Scottish romantic comedy following two strangers that team up to try and get home for Christmas after finding themselves stranded in the Scottish highlands on Christmas Eve.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A teenage girl and her little brother must survive a wild 24 hours during which a mass hysteria of unknown origins causes parents to turn violently on their own kids.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.