Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Friday the 13th : The Game in Video Games
Feb 26, 2020
Now This Is A Friday The 13th Game
Friday The 13th- is a movie franchise, the had a video game on the NES but it was god awful. So many years later, a kickstarter happened for this game and overall, US$422,866 was raised by 18,068 backers in BackerKit and about US$823,704.20 from 12,128 backers in Kickstarter, collecting about US$1,246,570.20 from both platforms, becoming the 95th most crowdfunded project of all time. So yea it succed. So lets talk about the game.
Gameplay:
Friday the 13th: The Game is a semi-open world third-person survival horror game set throughout the 1980s in a variety of locations in and around the fictional Camp Crystal Lake from the Friday the 13th franchise.
The game is an asymmetrical multiplayer video game, with up to eight people able to play in one game session. One player is randomly selected to control Jason Voorhees.
The main objective of playing as a counselor is to escape the map alive, which can be done more quickly by completing the map's side objectives (which are easier to complete when coordinating with other players) that will allow counselors to escape or to survive long enough until time runs out on the session, Jason may also be defeated with an "epic win condition" that requires both teamwork and planning, and is difficult to perform. A player may also control Tommy Jarvis, who becomes playable when certain conditions are met.
Setting: Five primary maps are available, each of which are based on locations from the first five films, and each set concurrent with the films' time periods. Matches may take place at: Camp Crystal Lake, the setting of the first film, in 1979; Packanack Lodge, the setting of the second film, in 1984; Higgins Haven, the setting of the third film, in 1984; the Jarvis House, the setting of the fourth film, in 1984; and Pinehurst, the setting of the fifth film, in 1989.
Its a really good, entertaining, fun and overall finally a good Friday The 13th game.
Gameplay:
Friday the 13th: The Game is a semi-open world third-person survival horror game set throughout the 1980s in a variety of locations in and around the fictional Camp Crystal Lake from the Friday the 13th franchise.
The game is an asymmetrical multiplayer video game, with up to eight people able to play in one game session. One player is randomly selected to control Jason Voorhees.
The main objective of playing as a counselor is to escape the map alive, which can be done more quickly by completing the map's side objectives (which are easier to complete when coordinating with other players) that will allow counselors to escape or to survive long enough until time runs out on the session, Jason may also be defeated with an "epic win condition" that requires both teamwork and planning, and is difficult to perform. A player may also control Tommy Jarvis, who becomes playable when certain conditions are met.
Setting: Five primary maps are available, each of which are based on locations from the first five films, and each set concurrent with the films' time periods. Matches may take place at: Camp Crystal Lake, the setting of the first film, in 1979; Packanack Lodge, the setting of the second film, in 1984; Higgins Haven, the setting of the third film, in 1984; the Jarvis House, the setting of the fourth film, in 1984; and Pinehurst, the setting of the fifth film, in 1989.
Its a really good, entertaining, fun and overall finally a good Friday The 13th game.
Mario Van Peebles recommended Night of the Living Dead (1968) in Movies (curated)
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.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
May 20, 2020
The Cloverfield Paradox is a kind of semi decent sci-fi thriller, with a relatively tenuous link to the wider Cloverfield story.
Much like 10 Cloverfield Lane, Paradox started life as a non-Cloverfield property. My only real issue with it's predecessor is that the link to the original film felt tacked onto the end, after the (excellent) main bulk of the story was done. My main issue with Paradox, is that the links are weaved in from the get go, but it's painfully obvious that the original plot was retconned to fit the overall Cloverfield narrative, and it doesn't quite flow properly.
This is most evident in the scenes that take place on Earth, and centre around Roger Davies' character. They just feel a bit out of place, even if they do have a monster movie kind of vibe.
The stuff that takes place up in space isn't too awful. A crew of scientists are orbiting earth in a space station, using a partical accelerator to find new sources of energy, energy that Earth desperately needs as reserves run low, and global war seems imminent. Of course, it doesn't all go to plan, and the crew find themselves in a parallel dimension, space and time is ripped apart etc etc.
To cut it short, lots of weird shit starts to happen aboard the station. It comes across like a poor man's Event Horizon. The pacing is a little off and the obligatory twist near the films climax is a bit silly and unearned, but honestly, there are worse sci-fi 'horror' films out there. There's some good effects work on show, and the cast are mostly likeable.
It's an entertaining enough film, but honestly, the Cloverfield links sort of spoil it a little. I love the original, and I loved 10 Cloverfield Lane, but I sincerely hope that if the franchise continues to move forward, they do some proper big budget sequels, and stop retconning other films!
Much like 10 Cloverfield Lane, Paradox started life as a non-Cloverfield property. My only real issue with it's predecessor is that the link to the original film felt tacked onto the end, after the (excellent) main bulk of the story was done. My main issue with Paradox, is that the links are weaved in from the get go, but it's painfully obvious that the original plot was retconned to fit the overall Cloverfield narrative, and it doesn't quite flow properly.
This is most evident in the scenes that take place on Earth, and centre around Roger Davies' character. They just feel a bit out of place, even if they do have a monster movie kind of vibe.
The stuff that takes place up in space isn't too awful. A crew of scientists are orbiting earth in a space station, using a partical accelerator to find new sources of energy, energy that Earth desperately needs as reserves run low, and global war seems imminent. Of course, it doesn't all go to plan, and the crew find themselves in a parallel dimension, space and time is ripped apart etc etc.
To cut it short, lots of weird shit starts to happen aboard the station. It comes across like a poor man's Event Horizon. The pacing is a little off and the obligatory twist near the films climax is a bit silly and unearned, but honestly, there are worse sci-fi 'horror' films out there. There's some good effects work on show, and the cast are mostly likeable.
It's an entertaining enough film, but honestly, the Cloverfield links sort of spoil it a little. I love the original, and I loved 10 Cloverfield Lane, but I sincerely hope that if the franchise continues to move forward, they do some proper big budget sequels, and stop retconning other films!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Men (2022) (2022) in Movies
Jul 3, 2022
Men... am I right?
Harper takes some time away in the country, following the death of her husband. But the break isn't quite as restful as she'd hoped.
I had a lot of feelings about Men. The trouble was, every time I started thinking about it, my brain spiralled off into many debates.
With Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear, I was fairly certain that the performances would be solid. They didn't disappoint. Kinnear in particular showed immense dedication to his roles, especially considering some of the things he was having to do. But, despite the superb acting, the characters weren't all that easy to get along with... and yes, that's sort of the point, but never mind.
There seems to be a jumble of genres happening, the trailers for the film show some of its creepy horror-esque moments, and the dramatic portion is represented. In the middle of the film, where Harper suffers from phone issues, we get an odd flash of science fiction... it doesn't fit with the rest of the film, it could easily have been removed with no consequences and left us with something much more consistent.
According to writer and director, Alex Garland, the idea of Men is whatever the viewer takes away from it. I've heard plenty of opinions about the meaning behind the film, though mainly from a small demographic.
To me, it felt like a dive into the mind of a woman who had suffered psychological abuse, and how she deals with that trauma. There are certainly a lot of ways this could be taken, and Men could have been a bold statement, but not committing to an explanation was a bit of a cop out.
While I didn't dislike the experience of watching it on the big screen, I don't need to see it again. Ultimately, the inconsistencies left me wanting something more.
Originally posted on: emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/07/men-movie-review.html
Harper takes some time away in the country, following the death of her husband. But the break isn't quite as restful as she'd hoped.
I had a lot of feelings about Men. The trouble was, every time I started thinking about it, my brain spiralled off into many debates.
With Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear, I was fairly certain that the performances would be solid. They didn't disappoint. Kinnear in particular showed immense dedication to his roles, especially considering some of the things he was having to do. But, despite the superb acting, the characters weren't all that easy to get along with... and yes, that's sort of the point, but never mind.
There seems to be a jumble of genres happening, the trailers for the film show some of its creepy horror-esque moments, and the dramatic portion is represented. In the middle of the film, where Harper suffers from phone issues, we get an odd flash of science fiction... it doesn't fit with the rest of the film, it could easily have been removed with no consequences and left us with something much more consistent.
According to writer and director, Alex Garland, the idea of Men is whatever the viewer takes away from it. I've heard plenty of opinions about the meaning behind the film, though mainly from a small demographic.
To me, it felt like a dive into the mind of a woman who had suffered psychological abuse, and how she deals with that trauma. There are certainly a lot of ways this could be taken, and Men could have been a bold statement, but not committing to an explanation was a bit of a cop out.
While I didn't dislike the experience of watching it on the big screen, I don't need to see it again. Ultimately, the inconsistencies left me wanting something more.
Originally posted on: emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/07/men-movie-review.html
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/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
Dana (24 KP) rated Blood and Salt (Blood and Salt, #1) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
Once again, I am giving the old spoiler alert right at the beginning, so you have been warned.
I am actually giving this book a 3.5 stars instead of a three star review.
Okay, so now onto the actual review. I found this book very interesting. Though I was expecting something more like a thriller and/or horror novel, this was more like a non-scary cult novel. But it was not as creepy as I had hoped. I wanted to be terrified, but instead I was left without much of an emotional response at all.
This book reminded me, in a lot of ways, of that movie Children of the Corn. I don't really know why because the plot is not the same, but I think because it was set in the middle of a corn field that ate people with a cult in the middle of it. (Side note: I am not a fan of that movie, but my friends made me watch it with them. I found the movie quite boring, to be honest.)
Ash was an okay main character. I mean, she was strong, in a way, but she wasn't particularly striking in many ways. She, like many other young adult heroines, falls in love with the wrong guy, then gets betrayed by him, but unlike some of those other heroines, she doesn't really do much about it. Yes, she gets angry, but it almost feels like she is about to forgive him immediately. That didn't particularly make sense to me because if she was really pissed at him, I doubt she would forgive him that quickly.
Rhys was kinda annoying, to me. Yes, he is the twin brother so he is going to feel protective of his sister, but he refused to listen to anyone but himself. There is also the fact that, even though he sees all this magic stuff around him, he doesn't believe in it. Plus, to top it all off, he thinks his sister and his mother are crazy just because he thinks differently. I was not a fan of any of this. He is discounting the women in his family because he does not know how to deal with what he cannot see.
I wasn't a fan of Dane either, to be honest. He didn't help Ash as much as he said he was and when she would come to him for help, he would brush it off as if it didn't matter. He was kind of an ass.
The whole Katia plot was a bit weak. I saw it coming from a mile away, but I did enjoy the bits with Marie (her daughter). Whenever Marie was in a scene, even though she hardly talked, the scene, to me, got a whole lot more interesting. I loved seeing Ash try to figure out what the hell was going on with her.
I am not sure where I stand with the whole "light and dark" blood with Ash and Rhys. It seems a bit strange, but I think I can be okay with it if it is explained more in the next book.
Also, the magic as a whole has not been fully fleshed out and I hope to see more of it in the next book. I feel like there was a lot briefly touched on, but not fully explained.
All in all, I am looking forward to the next book, if only to see what the hell is going to happen next. The characters, while not my favorite, have the potential to grow into who they are and be developed more. I did not hate this book, but going with that, it wasn't my favorite book either. I am giving it the extra half-star because it has the potential to become something really cool in the next book.
Speaking of: The Last Harvest comes out 7 February 2017.
I am actually giving this book a 3.5 stars instead of a three star review.
Okay, so now onto the actual review. I found this book very interesting. Though I was expecting something more like a thriller and/or horror novel, this was more like a non-scary cult novel. But it was not as creepy as I had hoped. I wanted to be terrified, but instead I was left without much of an emotional response at all.
This book reminded me, in a lot of ways, of that movie Children of the Corn. I don't really know why because the plot is not the same, but I think because it was set in the middle of a corn field that ate people with a cult in the middle of it. (Side note: I am not a fan of that movie, but my friends made me watch it with them. I found the movie quite boring, to be honest.)
Ash was an okay main character. I mean, she was strong, in a way, but she wasn't particularly striking in many ways. She, like many other young adult heroines, falls in love with the wrong guy, then gets betrayed by him, but unlike some of those other heroines, she doesn't really do much about it. Yes, she gets angry, but it almost feels like she is about to forgive him immediately. That didn't particularly make sense to me because if she was really pissed at him, I doubt she would forgive him that quickly.
Rhys was kinda annoying, to me. Yes, he is the twin brother so he is going to feel protective of his sister, but he refused to listen to anyone but himself. There is also the fact that, even though he sees all this magic stuff around him, he doesn't believe in it. Plus, to top it all off, he thinks his sister and his mother are crazy just because he thinks differently. I was not a fan of any of this. He is discounting the women in his family because he does not know how to deal with what he cannot see.
I wasn't a fan of Dane either, to be honest. He didn't help Ash as much as he said he was and when she would come to him for help, he would brush it off as if it didn't matter. He was kind of an ass.
The whole Katia plot was a bit weak. I saw it coming from a mile away, but I did enjoy the bits with Marie (her daughter). Whenever Marie was in a scene, even though she hardly talked, the scene, to me, got a whole lot more interesting. I loved seeing Ash try to figure out what the hell was going on with her.
I am not sure where I stand with the whole "light and dark" blood with Ash and Rhys. It seems a bit strange, but I think I can be okay with it if it is explained more in the next book.
Also, the magic as a whole has not been fully fleshed out and I hope to see more of it in the next book. I feel like there was a lot briefly touched on, but not fully explained.
All in all, I am looking forward to the next book, if only to see what the hell is going to happen next. The characters, while not my favorite, have the potential to grow into who they are and be developed more. I did not hate this book, but going with that, it wasn't my favorite book either. I am giving it the extra half-star because it has the potential to become something really cool in the next book.
Speaking of: The Last Harvest comes out 7 February 2017.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Rage (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
If you get the option to see this film you really should take the chance.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I started out making a blog for movie reviews a short while ago for the purpose of making reviews for fans. However, I didn't expect to be sent films to review so soon. I was put in touch with film maker Chris Witherspoon, he is promoting an independent film that he wrote, produced, directed and starred in called Rage. He sent me a copy and asked if I would review it for him. Happily I accepted. This is what being a film critic and reviewer is all about. Then I started to think, an independent film? There are a lot of them around and a lot of them are made by people that believe they possess the talent and ability to make a film, but in reality they fall far short of the mark. To get a good and unbiased opinion of the film I only watched the trailer for it, I left all the promotional material I received alone. The film arrived and with a fair amount of trepidation I put it on.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Poltergeist (1982) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019
The TV People!
When the Freeling family moved into their suburban California home, little did they know what they were getting themselves into! Minor oddities began showing themselves like chairs stacking in the kitchen lights flashing or even being pulled across the kitchen floor. It felt like a "tickle". The situation quickly grows more severe as a tree outside the children's room plunges inside and tries to ingest son, Robbie. Simultaneously, a gateway of sorts opens in the children's room eventually pulling the entire contents into its closet vortex including youngest daughter, Carol Anne.
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜