Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Big Trouble in Little China (1986) in Movies
Feb 10, 2021
Jack Burton's Big Trouble in Little China
Big Trouble in Little China- is a excellent fantasy martial arts action-comedy film.
The plot: The film tells the story of Jack Burton, who helps his friend Wang Chi rescue Wang's green-eyed fiancée from bandits in San Francisco's Chinatown. They go into the mysterious underworld beneath Chinatown, where they face an ancient sorcerer named David Lo Pan, who requires a woman with green eyes to marry him in order to release him from a centuries-old curse.
To compete with rival production The Golden Child’s casting of box office draw Eddie Murphy, Carpenter wanted a big star of his own and both Clint Eastwood and Jack Nicholson were considered but were busy.
The studio felt Kurt Russell was an up-and-coming star. Russell was initially not interested because he felt there were "a number of different ways to approach Jack, but I didn't know if there was a way that would be interesting enough for this movie.
You wouldnt think that the director of "Halloween", "The Fog" and "The Thing" would director this but he did
Its a excellent film.
The plot: The film tells the story of Jack Burton, who helps his friend Wang Chi rescue Wang's green-eyed fiancée from bandits in San Francisco's Chinatown. They go into the mysterious underworld beneath Chinatown, where they face an ancient sorcerer named David Lo Pan, who requires a woman with green eyes to marry him in order to release him from a centuries-old curse.
To compete with rival production The Golden Child’s casting of box office draw Eddie Murphy, Carpenter wanted a big star of his own and both Clint Eastwood and Jack Nicholson were considered but were busy.
The studio felt Kurt Russell was an up-and-coming star. Russell was initially not interested because he felt there were "a number of different ways to approach Jack, but I didn't know if there was a way that would be interesting enough for this movie.
You wouldnt think that the director of "Halloween", "The Fog" and "The Thing" would director this but he did
Its a excellent film.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A group of eccentric vampire hunters lead by the rugged and cold-hearted Jack Crow (James Woods) never really stop working. Taking great pride in the fruits of their labor, they work hard and play even harder as their celebrations after a job well done consist of alcohol flowing freely and plenty of women to take their minds off of work. But this particular job didn't go exactly as planned and it's weighing heavily on the mind of Jack Crow. Even after killing what's referred to as a "nest" of nine vampires, the master was no where to be found. Hardly a reason to celebrate in Jack's eyes. Unfortunately, his gut instinct was right as things get a hell of a lot worse for Jack's team when the master shows up to their little shindig. But this master is different from the others; stronger, more powerful, and why does he know Jack's name? There's something more elaborate going on and Jack Crow is going to find out exactly what it is while eradicating as many vampires as he possibly can along the way.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Big Trouble in Little China (1986) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Escape from china town
Big Trouble in Little China is a 1986 martial arts comedy movie.
the story follows Jack Burton, a man who agrees to help his friend Wang Chi rescue his green-eyed fiancée from bandits in San Francisco's Chinatown. Their mission leads them to a mysterious underworld beneath Chinatown, where they face an ancient sorcerer named Lo Pan, who requires a woman with green eyes to marry him in order to release him from a centuries-old curse.
Directed by John Carpenter and starring Kurt Russell, Kim Cattrall, Dennis Dun and James Hong
Great storyline, cheesy old school graphics and action, brilliant characters and cast.
Absolute classic.
release date: July 2, 1986
Running time: 99 minutes
Fun fact:
The project fulfilled Carpenter's long-standing desire to make a martial arts movie.
the story follows Jack Burton, a man who agrees to help his friend Wang Chi rescue his green-eyed fiancée from bandits in San Francisco's Chinatown. Their mission leads them to a mysterious underworld beneath Chinatown, where they face an ancient sorcerer named Lo Pan, who requires a woman with green eyes to marry him in order to release him from a centuries-old curse.
Directed by John Carpenter and starring Kurt Russell, Kim Cattrall, Dennis Dun and James Hong
Great storyline, cheesy old school graphics and action, brilliant characters and cast.
Absolute classic.
release date: July 2, 1986
Running time: 99 minutes
Fun fact:
The project fulfilled Carpenter's long-standing desire to make a martial arts movie.
Lenard (726 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Feb 24, 2020
It Wears Its Heart in the Right Place
I love Jack London's writing. It is so nice to read a story with language that is so straightforward. Caught between the romantic period, when writers used flowery prose and were paid per word, and the stream-of-consciousness movement, where narrators spoke in a manner of events as they were happening right at that moment, London's naturalism was a change of pace for readers.
Buck is the housebroken dog of a San Francisco judge who was indulged as any child of wealth would be in the 1890s. Alaska was harsh environment for man and beast. When money was offered for dogs who could work in Alaska as sled dogs for supplies to mining outposts, Buck is kidnapped. Along the way, Buck begins to learn the lineage of his forebears, the wolves, as he adapts to his new life in the frozen tundra.
The movie itself as adapted in 2020 avoids a lot of the hardships that Buck faces in his new life, but he is given a kindly old sage who looks out for him throughout the movie. It also includes a Snidely Whiplash-like literal gold-digger who comes to Alaska with little knowledge of Alaska or gold prospecting. This character is two-dimensional and portrayed as "evil." Also, the character of Spitz, an Alaskan malamute who leads the sled team and serves as an antagonist for Buck, is given very little screentime.
Last observation, during the film, as Harrison Ford lay on the ground in one of the final scenes, I looked into his eyes and saw not the 77-year-old Harrison Ford who has become a mentor to the film community, but the 30-year-old carpenter who just wanted to drag race a teenager in American Graffiti. He still has within his eyes, the look of hunger that acting feeds. And, he didn't need de-aging SPX to look younger than he is.
Buck is the housebroken dog of a San Francisco judge who was indulged as any child of wealth would be in the 1890s. Alaska was harsh environment for man and beast. When money was offered for dogs who could work in Alaska as sled dogs for supplies to mining outposts, Buck is kidnapped. Along the way, Buck begins to learn the lineage of his forebears, the wolves, as he adapts to his new life in the frozen tundra.
The movie itself as adapted in 2020 avoids a lot of the hardships that Buck faces in his new life, but he is given a kindly old sage who looks out for him throughout the movie. It also includes a Snidely Whiplash-like literal gold-digger who comes to Alaska with little knowledge of Alaska or gold prospecting. This character is two-dimensional and portrayed as "evil." Also, the character of Spitz, an Alaskan malamute who leads the sled team and serves as an antagonist for Buck, is given very little screentime.
Last observation, during the film, as Harrison Ford lay on the ground in one of the final scenes, I looked into his eyes and saw not the 77-year-old Harrison Ford who has become a mentor to the film community, but the 30-year-old carpenter who just wanted to drag race a teenager in American Graffiti. He still has within his eyes, the look of hunger that acting feeds. And, he didn't need de-aging SPX to look younger than he is.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 29, 2022
Ghostface (up until the reveal) (2 more)
The kills
Chemistry between Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox
Terrible killer reveal (2 more)
Rehashes everything from the original film.
Too meta for its own good
Movies Make Psychos More Imitative
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Scream franchise has always been this love letter to the horror genre while simultaneously embracing this self-deprecating demeanor that was meta long before it was the trendy thing for movies to do. All of the films would lay out the rules of a slasher or horror sequel while sometimes following a familiar formula, but often broke the boundaries of the stabby, blood-soaked mold it was proud to pretend to stay within the lines of.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.