Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Babysitter: Killer Queen (2020) in Movies
Sep 12, 2020
I have a soft spot for The Babysitter. It's a little middle of the road and has some flaws but it's fun, it's gory, and just a good time.
The sequel, The Babysitter: Killer Queen, is pretty much more of the same, albeit with a few more issues that render it inferior to it's predecessor.
The main problem is the absence of Samara Weaving. Her screentime in this probably totals around the 5 minute mark.
Judah Lewis returns as Cole, and takes the lead this time around. He's a decent enough lead for sure, but the chemistry between him and Weaving is what made the first movie stand out.
Elsewhere, some hastily explained exposition explains the return of the other members of the cult that were all offed in the first one, and it's a little hit and miss. Robbie Amell is pretty entertaining once again, but the screenplay doubles down on constant jokes, to the point where a lot of them don't land, and it feels like each character is just trying to out-edge the others with their edginess, and relentless pop culture references.
Another issue I found was the increase in role for Cole's Dad, played by Ken Marino. I tend to like him in most things he's in but he's given too much screentime this time around, and it doesn't take long for his character to wear thin. Same goes for Chris Wylde's character.
Apart from all that though, it's still fun to a degree. There's plenty of gore on display - a mix of so so CGI and practical effects by the looks of it - and it's suitably over the top. It pushes this sequel into more schlocky territory than the first, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and the two likable protagonists (Judah Lewis and Jenna Ortega) ensure that it's still a watchable comedy horror, even if it does have a gaping Samara Weaving shaped hole.
The sequel, The Babysitter: Killer Queen, is pretty much more of the same, albeit with a few more issues that render it inferior to it's predecessor.
The main problem is the absence of Samara Weaving. Her screentime in this probably totals around the 5 minute mark.
Judah Lewis returns as Cole, and takes the lead this time around. He's a decent enough lead for sure, but the chemistry between him and Weaving is what made the first movie stand out.
Elsewhere, some hastily explained exposition explains the return of the other members of the cult that were all offed in the first one, and it's a little hit and miss. Robbie Amell is pretty entertaining once again, but the screenplay doubles down on constant jokes, to the point where a lot of them don't land, and it feels like each character is just trying to out-edge the others with their edginess, and relentless pop culture references.
Another issue I found was the increase in role for Cole's Dad, played by Ken Marino. I tend to like him in most things he's in but he's given too much screentime this time around, and it doesn't take long for his character to wear thin. Same goes for Chris Wylde's character.
Apart from all that though, it's still fun to a degree. There's plenty of gore on display - a mix of so so CGI and practical effects by the looks of it - and it's suitably over the top. It pushes this sequel into more schlocky territory than the first, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and the two likable protagonists (Judah Lewis and Jenna Ortega) ensure that it's still a watchable comedy horror, even if it does have a gaping Samara Weaving shaped hole.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 47 Meters Down (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
The British horror film “47 Meters Down” tells the tale of two young women on vacation in Mexico who get far more of a thrill then they bargained for during a shark cage swim session. Sisters, Lisa (Mandy Moore) and Kate (Claire Holt) meet two charming young men as they try to lick Lisa’s post-break up wounds during a night out somewhere Mexico. When the guys offer to take them out on a shark swim adventure, Kate pushes Lisa to go ahead and do it in an effort to prove she is not as boring as her ex claims.
The film spends about twenty minutes building up this background story, but fails to create any moments for the audience to connect with the characters.
The whole premise is built around what clearly is a poor decision as a rusty old boat pulls into the marina to board the sisters. At this point forward, the entire rest of the film is shot primarily from Lisa’s point of view deep inside the ocean.
As the cage the girls are in first lowers down, there are a few shots of sharks that are very beautiful and thrilling. But after the predictable breakage of the winch holding the cage to the boat ensues, the girls sink to the bottom and attempt to fight for survival.
At this point forward it becomes a bit frustrating to watch because the entire film is very dark and you only get a few glimpses of a shark here or there. If there had been a bit more character build up or story line including rescue efforts, this may have been a theater worthy view. Audiences definitely won’t get as much excitement as they did from other shark films like that of “Jaws” or “Sharknado.” Mostly because this film attempts to take on a more realistic feel. Unfortunately it falls a bit flat and the audience finds comedy in what was supposed to be serious.
I give “47 meters Down” 1 out of 5 stars.
The film spends about twenty minutes building up this background story, but fails to create any moments for the audience to connect with the characters.
The whole premise is built around what clearly is a poor decision as a rusty old boat pulls into the marina to board the sisters. At this point forward, the entire rest of the film is shot primarily from Lisa’s point of view deep inside the ocean.
As the cage the girls are in first lowers down, there are a few shots of sharks that are very beautiful and thrilling. But after the predictable breakage of the winch holding the cage to the boat ensues, the girls sink to the bottom and attempt to fight for survival.
At this point forward it becomes a bit frustrating to watch because the entire film is very dark and you only get a few glimpses of a shark here or there. If there had been a bit more character build up or story line including rescue efforts, this may have been a theater worthy view. Audiences definitely won’t get as much excitement as they did from other shark films like that of “Jaws” or “Sharknado.” Mostly because this film attempts to take on a more realistic feel. Unfortunately it falls a bit flat and the audience finds comedy in what was supposed to be serious.
I give “47 meters Down” 1 out of 5 stars.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Aug 8, 2022
Phase four of the MCU has been interesting so far to say the least. Some projects have been great, some have been a little uninspired, but in its attempts to set up multiple overarching story threads, it feels a little wayward, especially in comparison to the recently concluded Infinity Saga. Thor: Love & Thunder has unfortunately arrived right in the middle of this new era of uncertainty, and is a film that ultimately feels a little directionless itself. It adapts a hugely beloved comic arc, an arc that could have potentially used two movies to flesh everything out properly. In this arc, Gorr the God Butcher is a big deal, he feels threatening, menacing, dangerous. In the film, Christian Bale is giving it his all, and there are moments when Gorr is genuinely creepy as hell, but the stakes never feel particularly high, resulting in a villain that feels like a shadow of his comic counterpart. Chris Hemsworth has proven by now that he is a perfect fit for Thor himself, but by this fourth entry, it genuinely feels that he is a straight up dumbass, and is miles away from his character growth in the first Thor. Herein lies the main issue I had with Love & Thunder. Ragnarok was a well balanced MCU film in terms of tone. It provided a much needed shakeup after the disappointment of The Dark World, and Taika Waititi was an inspired choice to bring the quirk. The comedy is tight, lands more often than not, whilst boasting some memorable set pieces. L&T takes the comedy aspect, and doubles down hard. It's joke after joke, to a point where a lot of it falls flat. It reminded me of Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in that respect. It's not terrible by any means, but it's balance feels completely off. There are some great set pieces to be fair. An early scene that involves an attack on New Asgard is a highlight, and almost feels like a horror film at times. It's also where we meet Jane Fosters Thor, who looks comic accurate, and is a genuinely great addition to the movie overall. There's another scene later on that takes place in the shadow realm that provides another highlight. It's mostly in black and white, and it feels unique to the MCU. It's one of a few inspired moments that prevent L&T from becoming a complete misfire.
Any other gripes from me would require stepping into spoiler territory so I'll leave it there. Love & Thunder is frequently dumb, but equally fun, colourful and loud, despite being a bit of a mess. The more Marvel Studios venture into Phase Four, the more sporadic and shaky it feels. I have no doubt that everything will plateau into a solid narrative again, I just hope that moment comes sooner, rather than later.
On a final note, the person I watched this with leaned over to me around the halfway point, and said that Thor just sounds like Boris Johnson when he talks, and now I can't unhear it. If I have to suffer, then you do to.
Any other gripes from me would require stepping into spoiler territory so I'll leave it there. Love & Thunder is frequently dumb, but equally fun, colourful and loud, despite being a bit of a mess. The more Marvel Studios venture into Phase Four, the more sporadic and shaky it feels. I have no doubt that everything will plateau into a solid narrative again, I just hope that moment comes sooner, rather than later.
On a final note, the person I watched this with leaned over to me around the halfway point, and said that Thor just sounds like Boris Johnson when he talks, and now I can't unhear it. If I have to suffer, then you do to.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
May 13, 2019
We arnt Venom
#venom is this years biggest flop. Inconsistent, #boring, generic & makes even #spiderman 3 look good in comparison. What wound me up most is the characters/the acting, every single person in this film underreacts not only to situations but to each others presence too. There's simply no #emotion towards anyone or anything, #sadness, shock, #horror & #panic all feel missing from everyone giving each of them a hollow & cartoonish feel. Characters also lack #motivation for any of their actions making a good chunk of them completely disposable. Tone wise its a mess with the sparce #horrific/#dark scenes edge taken away instantly because they are followed by such a #childish/out of place slapstick #comedy vibe. Infact Venoms tone felt more like watching #Jumanji rather than a 15 certificate #film with most of its runtime feeling like an over simplified dumbed down #family film. There's so many inconsistencies too like relationships going from hostile to fine with no explanation, characters figuring things out first time without having found evidence, people appear out of seemingly nowhere on multiple occasions & nobody ever notices any of the #death/destruction being caused around the city. Its all so obvious that it feels like either huge chunks of the film is either missing or someone was really bad at editing & keeping consistency. Action is poor, forgettable, generic & anticlimactic & the cgi #feels cheap, #lazy & unimaginative like a straight to dvd #movie. Plot is borderline offensive its that basic with so many early visual cues to whats going to happen that its really #inteligence insulting at times. #tomhardy is great as always & really seems like he's giving it his all but the bad writing & awful script kill what #charm & likability his character has completely & the interaction between him & Venom lacks punch & believability too. #Upgrade proved this year that you dont need a big budget to make a great film about losing control of yourself & yet Venom with all its backing doesnt even come close to doing anything right. Last years #life would of made a far better venom movie than this. #wednesdaywisdom #filmcritic #stanlee #mcu #comic #marvel
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Howling II: Your Sister Is a Werewolf (1985) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
One of my favourite parts is the bit where the creepy dude looks straight into the camera and say "Schnitzeeeel".
Honestly not sure if Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf (Stirba, Werewolf Bitch in some corners of the world) is a 5 star film, or a 1 star film.
I always have time for Christopher Lee, and here is no different, and Sybil Danning is a bonafide B-Movie icon, but everyone else is hamming it up to the max (not necessarily in a good way), spouting the terrible screenplay and making silly growling noises constantly.
The werewolf costumes look terrible (a bit of googling told me that the production was sent monkey suits by mistake, and they just had to roll with it) and the movie constantly attempts to force it's theme tune down your throat - I lost count of how many times it plays throughout the runtime, but it starts off well enough, but by the end of the film it's grating as fuck.
It's certainly a far cry from the genuinely good first movie but for all it's faults, I actually really enjoyed it.
The last review I wrote on here was for Species IV, where I commented on how it was so awful, and had no charm to it at all, which was in stark contrast to a lot of bad horror movies, especially a bunch from the 80s. Howling II is one of those movies.
It rarely gets boring, it's has some decent practical gore effects, and the terrible script is often so ludicrous, it ends up being unintentional comedy gold.
Not to mention that it's has the most unnecessarily gratuitous end credits roll I've ever seen - in fact, if you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing, just find the end credits and you'll get the vibe of this whole glorious mess of a film.
So yeah, is it a 1 star movie or 5 star movie? I still don't know but I know I low key love it, so 2 and a half stars with a love heart seems fair. I'd definitely recommend giving it a watch though, just to experience the sheer cheesy absurdity.
Honestly not sure if Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf (Stirba, Werewolf Bitch in some corners of the world) is a 5 star film, or a 1 star film.
I always have time for Christopher Lee, and here is no different, and Sybil Danning is a bonafide B-Movie icon, but everyone else is hamming it up to the max (not necessarily in a good way), spouting the terrible screenplay and making silly growling noises constantly.
The werewolf costumes look terrible (a bit of googling told me that the production was sent monkey suits by mistake, and they just had to roll with it) and the movie constantly attempts to force it's theme tune down your throat - I lost count of how many times it plays throughout the runtime, but it starts off well enough, but by the end of the film it's grating as fuck.
It's certainly a far cry from the genuinely good first movie but for all it's faults, I actually really enjoyed it.
The last review I wrote on here was for Species IV, where I commented on how it was so awful, and had no charm to it at all, which was in stark contrast to a lot of bad horror movies, especially a bunch from the 80s. Howling II is one of those movies.
It rarely gets boring, it's has some decent practical gore effects, and the terrible script is often so ludicrous, it ends up being unintentional comedy gold.
Not to mention that it's has the most unnecessarily gratuitous end credits roll I've ever seen - in fact, if you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing, just find the end credits and you'll get the vibe of this whole glorious mess of a film.
So yeah, is it a 1 star movie or 5 star movie? I still don't know but I know I low key love it, so 2 and a half stars with a love heart seems fair. I'd definitely recommend giving it a watch though, just to experience the sheer cheesy absurdity.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
I am the eater of worlds, and of children.
IT Chapter2 feels like a ride you've been sat on all day, immense fun but a tad repetitive & a little tiresome after awhile. Now I can't remember the book much to be honest so im going by the films here alone & I personally think its all one giant metaphor for child suicide with the clown just being one big easy to relate to combined metaphor for fear, grief, guilt, betrayal, depression, negativity, loneliness, abuse, anxiety, torment, worry, instability & stress of growing up in a town thats had a lot of tragic events happen in it & in a world where things such as bullying, paedophilia, murder, arson, death, accidents, incest, mental illness, fear mongering, love and having no friends can also be against you and playing on your mind. Watching it in this way is where the real terror lies & everything had a logical explanation to it too (especially watching both films back to back) making these films that much more powerful, relatable, meaningful & heartwarming. Watching these kids/adults unite together to battle everything life throws at them to conquer & overcome the darkness while still trying to have fun and enjoy youth at the same time is so empowering and uplifting its just a shame this new film retreads to much old ground feeling a tad to repetitious of what we've seen before already. That being said the character drama is great & theres clear love here for the source material/films from the past that have since become cult classic. A genuine nostalgia vibe is present here too with the film feeling very lost boys meets the goonies & theres even elements of evil dead & john carpenters the thing too. Acting is fantastic with a near flawless adult cast & special effects for the most part are creative, creepy, disgusting & good looking with a few seemingly rushed bits here & there. Its a good film dont get me wrong it just feels like it needs a trim as the lulls at times can make your mind float off elsewhere (especially during some side plots). Overall IT 2 has great depth, fun horror elements & well developed characters its just a shame the comedy & repetitive structure spoil it.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Anna and the Apocalypse (2018) in Movies
Sep 4, 2020
Honestly struggled to get on board with this one.
I generally don't like musicals (with a couple of exceptions) and Anna and the Apocalypse certainly doesn't change my mind in that respect, but everything surrounding fell a bit flat for me as well.
For one, none of the characters are remotely likable, apart from Anna herself. By the time people start getting chowed on, it's hard to care. It takes its time building up, treating us all to four full forgettable songs before anything properly kicks off, and when it does it's all a bit meh.
In terms of zombie action, it's not the worst I've ever seen, but it's one of those films that likes to cut away instead of showing off any decent effects.
The music itself is just quite bland. It's certainly going for a Glee type feel with what it's doing, so for me personally it's just a huge miss. I'm sure there are plenty out there who enjoy Glee, and therefore will probably get something out of the music on show here which is fine, just not for me.
There's one scene to be fair, where Anna leaves her house with her headphones in, completely unaware of the carnage unfolding around her whilst singing. This bit was actually pretty entertaining and amusing, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the scene that set off the whole idea process.
The film can't quite decide what genre it's going for however. Is it a musical, is it a zombie horror, is it a Christmas movie? I'm sure the advertising campaign would have you think it's all three, but it just doesn't do any of them justice. Most of the jokes fall flat - I will admit that I audibly laughed once during the whole thing...
Ultimately, Anna and the Apocalypse ultimately draws comparisons with its more superior peers, such as Shaun of the Dead, but the truth it's no where as witty or groundbreaking. Since SOTD, the zombie comedy sub genre has been done to death, and these days, it takes something special to really stand out. This film takes a punt, and genuinely tries something new, but it's not executed well enough to rise above the pack.
I generally don't like musicals (with a couple of exceptions) and Anna and the Apocalypse certainly doesn't change my mind in that respect, but everything surrounding fell a bit flat for me as well.
For one, none of the characters are remotely likable, apart from Anna herself. By the time people start getting chowed on, it's hard to care. It takes its time building up, treating us all to four full forgettable songs before anything properly kicks off, and when it does it's all a bit meh.
In terms of zombie action, it's not the worst I've ever seen, but it's one of those films that likes to cut away instead of showing off any decent effects.
The music itself is just quite bland. It's certainly going for a Glee type feel with what it's doing, so for me personally it's just a huge miss. I'm sure there are plenty out there who enjoy Glee, and therefore will probably get something out of the music on show here which is fine, just not for me.
There's one scene to be fair, where Anna leaves her house with her headphones in, completely unaware of the carnage unfolding around her whilst singing. This bit was actually pretty entertaining and amusing, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the scene that set off the whole idea process.
The film can't quite decide what genre it's going for however. Is it a musical, is it a zombie horror, is it a Christmas movie? I'm sure the advertising campaign would have you think it's all three, but it just doesn't do any of them justice. Most of the jokes fall flat - I will admit that I audibly laughed once during the whole thing...
Ultimately, Anna and the Apocalypse ultimately draws comparisons with its more superior peers, such as Shaun of the Dead, but the truth it's no where as witty or groundbreaking. Since SOTD, the zombie comedy sub genre has been done to death, and these days, it takes something special to really stand out. This film takes a punt, and genuinely tries something new, but it's not executed well enough to rise above the pack.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Campfires, going to senior parties, and girls. That’s you would normally think about if you were a junior in high school still in scouts. Ben (Tye Sheridan), Carter (Logan Miller), and Augie (Joey Morgan) have been best friends for years since they first joined scouts. While Augie is getting his Condor Patch, the highest achievement a scout can get; Ben and Carter think it’s about time they leave scouts, since they are going into their junior year and don’t want to be seen as dorks. However after ditching Augie the two set out to find the secret senior party where Carter’s sister Kendall (Halston Sage) is at and Ben is all for it. However Ben begins to notice some abnormal things in town, like their scout master (David Koechner) not showing up for the campfire and the town being completely abandoned. The two make a pit stop and run into some trouble at a strip club, much to Carters delight due to the bouncer being mysteriously gone from the door. Unfortunately the two get a little more than a lap dance when they come face to face with the source of all the odd behavior, Zombies. Luckily they befriend Denise (Sarah Dumont) a cocktail waitress from the club and the three of them plus Augie set out on a mission to save Kendall before the government decides what to do to the zombie infested town.
From Christopher B. Landon comes Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. With Landon being most known for working on the Paranormal Activity franchise, this movie is a bit of a change from his usual work. Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is exactly what you would want from a comedy horror movie obviously targeting young adults. It has witty lines, zombies, and attractive leads. While the movie sometimes boarders the lines of too campy, I feel it balances well. While the whole concept of the film is silly, it is executed in a brilliant way and thankfully they don’t rely heavily on dick jokes.
I was fortunate enough to be able to go the Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse Ultimate Fan Experience. They gave shirts to everyone who attended and the excitement could be felt while in the room with avid zombie film fanatics. However at the beginning of the film it showed a special piece of film just for the event, and it was awful. Ten minutes of Dillion Francis’s zombie cameo in a music video that never seemed to end. While some enjoyed it most of the audience sighed with relief when it was over. That has to be my only concern with the event, and thankfully it was for the fan experience and more than likely will not be in the actual film showings (General public you are saved). I would recommend this movie for people who enjoy campy horror films, since by all means this film is anything but serious. Also would not recommend of young children, there is some nudity.
I would give this film a 3.5/5 stars. While it was a fun film that kept me laughing for most of it; that fan experience clip definitely was a disaster. I would definitely watch the
From Christopher B. Landon comes Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. With Landon being most known for working on the Paranormal Activity franchise, this movie is a bit of a change from his usual work. Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is exactly what you would want from a comedy horror movie obviously targeting young adults. It has witty lines, zombies, and attractive leads. While the movie sometimes boarders the lines of too campy, I feel it balances well. While the whole concept of the film is silly, it is executed in a brilliant way and thankfully they don’t rely heavily on dick jokes.
I was fortunate enough to be able to go the Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse Ultimate Fan Experience. They gave shirts to everyone who attended and the excitement could be felt while in the room with avid zombie film fanatics. However at the beginning of the film it showed a special piece of film just for the event, and it was awful. Ten minutes of Dillion Francis’s zombie cameo in a music video that never seemed to end. While some enjoyed it most of the audience sighed with relief when it was over. That has to be my only concern with the event, and thankfully it was for the fan experience and more than likely will not be in the actual film showings (General public you are saved). I would recommend this movie for people who enjoy campy horror films, since by all means this film is anything but serious. Also would not recommend of young children, there is some nudity.
I would give this film a 3.5/5 stars. While it was a fun film that kept me laughing for most of it; that fan experience clip definitely was a disaster. I would definitely watch the