Search
The Tick - Season 1
8.0
Rate It
TV Season
In a world where superheroes have been real for decades, an accountant with mental health issues and...
Little Children (2006)
6.3
Rate It
Movie Watch
Sarah (Kate Winslet) is a well-educated woman who cannot come to terms with her life as a housewife...
Shutter Island (2010)
7.9
Rate It
Movie Watch
The implausible escape of a brilliant murderess brings U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo...
Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
7.4
Rate It
Movie Watch
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Oct 19, 2018
Completely unnecessary
The original Nightmare on a Elm Street is a classic, so a reboot was always going to be a risky choice. There are parts of this that are actually not too bad, it’s just a shame the rest of the film is a mess.
So story wise, this does have a few nods to the original but yet also expands on the back story behind Freddy, which is definitely a good thing. The amount of gore is still very much present and a lot of the special effects are quite good, although there is a few dodgy patches of CGI. They’ve made Freddy very scary and creepy in this, and gotten rid of the jokes and humour, which really does work. The problem is that Jackie Earle Haley just isn’t Freddy. There was something about him, his look, that really didn’t work for me. And the rest of the casting wasn’t great either - I have no idea what Rooney Mara was doing in this but she was not likeable at all as Nancy. The story faltered too in the second half and dragged on, to the point where it became very boring. And the ending wasn’t a surprise. Yet another unnecessary reboot.
So story wise, this does have a few nods to the original but yet also expands on the back story behind Freddy, which is definitely a good thing. The amount of gore is still very much present and a lot of the special effects are quite good, although there is a few dodgy patches of CGI. They’ve made Freddy very scary and creepy in this, and gotten rid of the jokes and humour, which really does work. The problem is that Jackie Earle Haley just isn’t Freddy. There was something about him, his look, that really didn’t work for me. And the rest of the casting wasn’t great either - I have no idea what Rooney Mara was doing in this but she was not likeable at all as Nancy. The story faltered too in the second half and dragged on, to the point where it became very boring. And the ending wasn’t a surprise. Yet another unnecessary reboot.
JT (287 KP) rated Shutter Island (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
It’s all very film noir from Scorsese, more at home among gangsters and moles, here he turns his attention to a period mystery thriller.
The film has touches of Hitchcockian flair throughout it as we watch DiCaprio and Ruffalo embark through mist and fog in order to reach a desolate island, over run with guards and orderlies whose job it seems is to keep a watchful eye over the criminally insane.
And so begins a puzzling quest for the truth as DiCaprio attempts to leave no stone unturned in the search for the missing patient while at the same time battling his own demons.
The death of his wife in an apartment fire seems to be the catalyst for a lot of dream-scape and it only proves to be a distraction from the impending outcome, as an array of colourful characters try and put him and his partner off the scent. That and its also revealed that Teddy, an ex-GI has been tormented by memories of liberating Dachau nine years earlier.
It’s a very well directed film with an added musical score that will have the hairs on your neck standing on end.
DiCaprio is nothing short of sublime and the transformation from seemingly sane individual to… well, anything else would be seen as a massive plot spoiler. The supporting cast are as equally good, with strong performances from Ben Kingsley, Michelle Williams and Jackie Earle Haley as a disfigured inmate who pops up to reveal to Teddy more clues about the mysterious secrets the island hides.
The cinematography is also exceptional with some really harrowing shots, one of which places us in the sights of a firing squad that cuts to pieces a group of death camp Nazis. Not to mention the dream sequence involving Teddy’s wife, covered in blood and disappearing into ash as a desperate DiCaprio grasps at one last embrace.
The film drops hints and clues all through it. There are some purposely shot continuity errors that film viewers should be watchful of that will lead them to the jaw dropping and well thought out if not predictable conclusion. It’s a very well directed film with an added musical score that will have the hairs on your neck standing on end.
The film has touches of Hitchcockian flair throughout it as we watch DiCaprio and Ruffalo embark through mist and fog in order to reach a desolate island, over run with guards and orderlies whose job it seems is to keep a watchful eye over the criminally insane.
And so begins a puzzling quest for the truth as DiCaprio attempts to leave no stone unturned in the search for the missing patient while at the same time battling his own demons.
The death of his wife in an apartment fire seems to be the catalyst for a lot of dream-scape and it only proves to be a distraction from the impending outcome, as an array of colourful characters try and put him and his partner off the scent. That and its also revealed that Teddy, an ex-GI has been tormented by memories of liberating Dachau nine years earlier.
It’s a very well directed film with an added musical score that will have the hairs on your neck standing on end.
DiCaprio is nothing short of sublime and the transformation from seemingly sane individual to… well, anything else would be seen as a massive plot spoiler. The supporting cast are as equally good, with strong performances from Ben Kingsley, Michelle Williams and Jackie Earle Haley as a disfigured inmate who pops up to reveal to Teddy more clues about the mysterious secrets the island hides.
The cinematography is also exceptional with some really harrowing shots, one of which places us in the sights of a firing squad that cuts to pieces a group of death camp Nazis. Not to mention the dream sequence involving Teddy’s wife, covered in blood and disappearing into ash as a desperate DiCaprio grasps at one last embrace.
The film drops hints and clues all through it. There are some purposely shot continuity errors that film viewers should be watchful of that will lead them to the jaw dropping and well thought out if not predictable conclusion. It’s a very well directed film with an added musical score that will have the hairs on your neck standing on end.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Good visuals, not much else to recommend it
A few of my loyal readers recommended that I check out ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL in the biggest screen I could find, and in 3D. And...I'm glad I did for this film is a visual feast for the eyes, filled with eye-popping CGI and an interesting futuristic world on which the events of the film take place.
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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.
JT (287 KP) rated RoboCop (2014) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Reboot taints the original's good name
If you’re going to remake one of the 80s most iconic action films you’ve got to do it with some balls. Sadly José Padilha dropped this particular ball, pretty spectacularly in fact, to give us a sorry remake and leave fans of the original baying for blood (something which was missing in this).
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
Andy K (10821 KP) Oct 19, 2018