Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
The original Halloween is such a goddam incredible movie, that anytime the franchise has tried to stray too far from its roots, the wheels just come off. The psychic stuff in Halloween 5 just didn't work. The cult stuff in Halloween 6 just didn't work. The found footage stuff in Resurrection just didn't work. This time around, it's a remake of the original, directed by Rob Zombie. His particular brand of hateful characters and nasty dialogue can be effective in other corners of horror, but when applied to the Halloween template, you guessed it, it just doesn't work.
It has its moments - Malcolm McDowell is great as Dr Loomis, and the towering behemoth of a Michael Myers we get her is genuinely fucking terrifying. There's also a fine selection of genre icons here and there - Dee Wallace, Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Danielle Harris - it's an impressive roster for sure.
All of this isn't enough to lift this remake above all of its problems however.
None of the characters are particularly likable, and it's off pacing make for a bloated experience, an issue that's further exacerbated by the more widely available Directors Cut, which further pans out its runtime with an horrifically unnecessary rape scene.
I can appreciate the decision to explore the origins of Michael, but the end results are very mixed. When the familiar stuff kicks off halfway through, it's actually kind of boring. It manages to ape the original at every turn, whilst simultaneously feeling disrespectful with it's token RZ tropes.
All in all, Halloween is a remake that I wouldn't take issue with, but the decision to put Zombie in the driver's seat results in a movie that doesn't feel like it belongs anywhere. An inferior re-tread in every aspect, that leaves a bitter after taste.
It has its moments - Malcolm McDowell is great as Dr Loomis, and the towering behemoth of a Michael Myers we get her is genuinely fucking terrifying. There's also a fine selection of genre icons here and there - Dee Wallace, Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Danielle Harris - it's an impressive roster for sure.
All of this isn't enough to lift this remake above all of its problems however.
None of the characters are particularly likable, and it's off pacing make for a bloated experience, an issue that's further exacerbated by the more widely available Directors Cut, which further pans out its runtime with an horrifically unnecessary rape scene.
I can appreciate the decision to explore the origins of Michael, but the end results are very mixed. When the familiar stuff kicks off halfway through, it's actually kind of boring. It manages to ape the original at every turn, whilst simultaneously feeling disrespectful with it's token RZ tropes.
All in all, Halloween is a remake that I wouldn't take issue with, but the decision to put Zombie in the driver's seat results in a movie that doesn't feel like it belongs anywhere. An inferior re-tread in every aspect, that leaves a bitter after taste.
Love Saves the Day: A History of American Dance Music Culture
Book
Disco is the music that America tried to forget. By the end of the 1970s "Saturday Night Fever"...
Common Ground
Book
SHORTLISTED FOR THE WAINWRIGHT PRIZE 2016. Shortlisted for the 2015 Portico Prize for Non-Fiction....
Terminator 3 - Rise of the Machines (2003)
6.4
Rate It
Movie Watch
A decade has passed since John Connor (Nick Stahl) helped prevent Judgment Day and save mankind from...
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Oct 10, 2018
A successful re-imagining but turned up to 11!
When I first heard director Rob Zombie was going to have a hand at Halloween, I couldn't have been more excited. His films up to that point had been intense, scary, gruesome, gothic, sexual and down-rite awesome!
This reinvention had big shoes to fill since the original Halloween is not only a scary movie classic, but invented or perfected a lot of horror elements still used in films today.
The additions to the story proved successful seeing a lot more scenes of Michael as a child, his dysfunctional family roots (which could have been part of his inner demons) and more details around his escape from the psychiatric hospital. Then the original story plays out as you are familiar; although, more intense and evil.
The third act does seem to drag out just a bit as the movie is around 2 hours in length.
Great to see a lot of "B" movie actors appear in the film including Malcolm McDowell, Clint Howard, Brad Dourif, Dee Wallace and Richard Lynch. Also Danielle Harris who was the little girl in parts 4 & 5 is also there as another homage.
Overall, a successful reboot with enough mixture of old and new to keep me very well entertained.
This reinvention had big shoes to fill since the original Halloween is not only a scary movie classic, but invented or perfected a lot of horror elements still used in films today.
The additions to the story proved successful seeing a lot more scenes of Michael as a child, his dysfunctional family roots (which could have been part of his inner demons) and more details around his escape from the psychiatric hospital. Then the original story plays out as you are familiar; although, more intense and evil.
The third act does seem to drag out just a bit as the movie is around 2 hours in length.
Great to see a lot of "B" movie actors appear in the film including Malcolm McDowell, Clint Howard, Brad Dourif, Dee Wallace and Richard Lynch. Also Danielle Harris who was the little girl in parts 4 & 5 is also there as another homage.
Overall, a successful reboot with enough mixture of old and new to keep me very well entertained.
Prison Break - Season 2
8.3
Rate It
TV Season
This season begins eight hours after the escape from prison; focusing mainly on the escapees. The...
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Honestly, I thought this was best entry in the series since Carpenter's Original.
Halloween II opens up with a hospital sequence referencing the original Halloween II, and honestly, this hospital scene was not only the most intense and frightening sequence from a Halloween movie, but it was also one of the most frightening and intense sequences I've seen period.
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Apr 5, 2022
The latest Marvel offering is Morbius. Michael Morbius (Jared Leto) grew up in Greece under the care of Dr.Emil Nikols (Jared Harris). In this universe, Emil is Michael’s Mentor. This story takes
bits from the comic book but it clearly isn’t canon. It is an adequate anti-hero origin story for Phase 4 which gives us the backstory of Morbius’ creation.
Morbius has a rare blood disease. As a child, he made his best friend Milo/Lucien (Matt Smith), a promise to find the cure for their shared illness. Michael, in his quest for the cure, became the youngest scientist to win the Nobel Prize from his development of artificial blood.
He works with fellow scientist Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona) who becomes his love interest.
Morbius has been working on vampire bats and the abilities within their blood. Once the formula has stabilized, he begins human trials on himself. In doing so, the serum that he has developed transforms him into a vampire that needs human blood to sustain his existence.
The film seems to have dropped the trail to lead the audience to logical conclusions. There are questions that need to be answered which would help flesh out the actions of the characters.
Why the serum, if the reason is to create a cure, why did the bat and human combination mutate instead of the blood changing?
There are points throughout the film that feel like critical explanatory lines were edited out.
Some scenes had witty banter between Michael and Milo. It would have been good to see Morbius enjoy his transformation from his weak, ill state to the Vampire.
The film was good. It definitely could have been better with more information. I wanted to understand motivation by the actors indicating motive or have red herrings thrown through the film.
The best parts for me were the moments where he stumbled upon his new abilities. He observes them like the scientist he is and takes it as data, in order to understand the changes.
The CGI was muddy, in trying to show movement as quick. What it looked like was trying to
convey speed, but in doing so, ended up having what showed up as squiggly lines instead.
I liked it, but didn’t love it mainly for what it seemed to lack, continuity. I think for an origin film, the character needs to be brought out as clean as possible in order to develop solid character traits.
If you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that lead into the Multiverse of Magic. I am definitely looking forward to that film.
3 stars out of 5
bits from the comic book but it clearly isn’t canon. It is an adequate anti-hero origin story for Phase 4 which gives us the backstory of Morbius’ creation.
Morbius has a rare blood disease. As a child, he made his best friend Milo/Lucien (Matt Smith), a promise to find the cure for their shared illness. Michael, in his quest for the cure, became the youngest scientist to win the Nobel Prize from his development of artificial blood.
He works with fellow scientist Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona) who becomes his love interest.
Morbius has been working on vampire bats and the abilities within their blood. Once the formula has stabilized, he begins human trials on himself. In doing so, the serum that he has developed transforms him into a vampire that needs human blood to sustain his existence.
The film seems to have dropped the trail to lead the audience to logical conclusions. There are questions that need to be answered which would help flesh out the actions of the characters.
Why the serum, if the reason is to create a cure, why did the bat and human combination mutate instead of the blood changing?
There are points throughout the film that feel like critical explanatory lines were edited out.
Some scenes had witty banter between Michael and Milo. It would have been good to see Morbius enjoy his transformation from his weak, ill state to the Vampire.
The film was good. It definitely could have been better with more information. I wanted to understand motivation by the actors indicating motive or have red herrings thrown through the film.
The best parts for me were the moments where he stumbled upon his new abilities. He observes them like the scientist he is and takes it as data, in order to understand the changes.
The CGI was muddy, in trying to show movement as quick. What it looked like was trying to
convey speed, but in doing so, ended up having what showed up as squiggly lines instead.
I liked it, but didn’t love it mainly for what it seemed to lack, continuity. I think for an origin film, the character needs to be brought out as clean as possible in order to develop solid character traits.
If you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that lead into the Multiverse of Magic. I am definitely looking forward to that film.
3 stars out of 5
Erika (17788 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 16, 2018 (Updated Nov 19, 2018)
Newt (2 more)
The beasts
Jude Law as Dumbledore
Johnny Depp (2 more)
Johnny Depp
and Johnny Depp
*After reading the screenplay, I'm knocking this rating down.
I am completely torn on this one, I liked some parts, but hated others. I also really can't stand Johnny Depp, and I rolled my eyes to myself every time he was on screen...
In my book, Jude Law was playing Richard Harris' Dumbledore, not... Michael Gambon (Don't even get me started on Gambon: 'Did you put your name in the goblet of fire, Harry?' Dumbledore asked CALMLY). So, it was a good way to go.
I did not like the way they went with some characters, namely one, who was rumored to go to Grindelwald's camp. Making a likeable character slightly deranged was irritating. There was a name drop at Hogwarts that had to have been a relative, unless the original character became an adult professor before she was technically born...
However, the possible recons that occurred didn't mess with canon as badly as that terrible Cursed Child mess.
It was largely predictable, and even the end, it was all foreshadowed, and not in a good way. The best bits were of Newt with the beasts... I liked Eddie Redmayne, as always, but can we please stop calling these movies Fantastic Beasts? 6 for him and the Niffler alone.
I wanted to largely stay away from a comparison, but I feel like Rowling is going the George Lucas route. And, that's not a compliment.
I am completely torn on this one, I liked some parts, but hated others. I also really can't stand Johnny Depp, and I rolled my eyes to myself every time he was on screen...
In my book, Jude Law was playing Richard Harris' Dumbledore, not... Michael Gambon (Don't even get me started on Gambon: 'Did you put your name in the goblet of fire, Harry?' Dumbledore asked CALMLY). So, it was a good way to go.
I did not like the way they went with some characters, namely one, who was rumored to go to Grindelwald's camp. Making a likeable character slightly deranged was irritating. There was a name drop at Hogwarts that had to have been a relative, unless the original character became an adult professor before she was technically born...
However, the possible recons that occurred didn't mess with canon as badly as that terrible Cursed Child mess.
It was largely predictable, and even the end, it was all foreshadowed, and not in a good way. The best bits were of Newt with the beasts... I liked Eddie Redmayne, as always, but can we please stop calling these movies Fantastic Beasts? 6 for him and the Niffler alone.
I wanted to largely stay away from a comparison, but I feel like Rowling is going the George Lucas route. And, that's not a compliment.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
8.8
Rate It
Movie Watch
Meticulously directed by David Lean at a then-record studio cost of $13 million, the Sam Spiegel...