Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Highlander 2: The Quickening (1991) in Movies
Feb 22, 2018
Which part of 'there can be only one' did the film-makers not get? Baffling sequel doesn't bother with an actual plot, settles for a succession of disjointed ideas and set pieces; barely makes sense on its own terms, is utterly incoherent if you consider the backstory established by the original movie.
Sean Connery chewing the scenery gives the film a certain appeal to lovers of ham acting; same is true of Michael Ironside. Christopher Lambert is still quite painful to listen to. Quite how the Highlander series managed to continue on for umpty-tump more sequels and TV episodes is a mystery: it is notable that this movie was quietly forgotten about and never mentioned again.
Sean Connery chewing the scenery gives the film a certain appeal to lovers of ham acting; same is true of Michael Ironside. Christopher Lambert is still quite painful to listen to. Quite how the Highlander series managed to continue on for umpty-tump more sequels and TV episodes is a mystery: it is notable that this movie was quietly forgotten about and never mentioned again.
Michael Packner (32 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019 (Updated Jun 15, 2019)
The film starts off really good. The first half of the film is definitely quality. (1 more)
The strongest point of the film is an absolutely beautiful and brutal tracking shot that lasts about two minutes. Really epic stuff.
The second half of the film. At about halfway the film hits a wall and freefalls from there. (3 more)
Vicki's death scene is played for cheap laughs when the scene should've been dead serious. This is the start of the freefall.
The twist with the "New Loomis" is BRUTALLY awful.
The "epic" final act and long awaited showdown between Laurie and Michael is epically meh.
Before I start I want to qualify this by saying other than the first two films which are classics, I really do not like this series. It's overrated and boring and truthfully everything past part 2 is mediocre to crap, so I went into this honestly expecting to hate it and watched it more for my wife than myself. That being said, the first half hour I felt like I was right, but then it did get better. This was a better sequel than the previous ones. Michael is evil again and he is BRUTAL. The use of comedy in this film was overdone to a huge fault, especially one kill scene where they used comedy to absolutely kill the tension and the scene came off absolutely disrespectful and just mean spirited in a bad way. The new Loomis subplot was awful. Why? Just why? A father with his son makes the dumbest decision ever in a horror movie and that's ok, but people forgive it because it's this franchise. I did enjoy the final showdown between Michael and Laurie though so that's a positive. I rank the film as at least 3 or 4 in the franchise so there's that. At least I had fun and enjoyed it for the most part. Never let a comedian write a horror movie ever again.
Antoine Fuqua recommended The Godfather (1972) in Movies (curated)
ClareR (5589 KP) rated The Walking People in Books
Dec 14, 2022
It’s the 1960’s, and Greta and Johanna Cahill leave their farm and sail away on a ship to New York. They leave with Michael, a ‘Tinker’ who wants to settle down once he’s there, and make a life for himself.
Greta makes a life for HERself once she’s in New York - out of the shadow of her more confident sister, but in doing so, she ends up keeping secrets that I wondered would have been better shared. But these are people constrained by the times they live in and the place they come from.
I really enjoyed following the lives of Greta and Michael as they struggled (and succeeded) to make lives for themselves. Part of me wondered why anyone would want to leave the beauty of rural Ireland for the hustle of New York, but in reality there was nothing there for a lot of young people. If they wanted to earn money and have a job, they left for America and the UK.
It’s just a lovely story, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading this story of a family that loses touch and finds one another years later - with a bittersweet ending.
Recommended.
Greta makes a life for HERself once she’s in New York - out of the shadow of her more confident sister, but in doing so, she ends up keeping secrets that I wondered would have been better shared. But these are people constrained by the times they live in and the place they come from.
I really enjoyed following the lives of Greta and Michael as they struggled (and succeeded) to make lives for themselves. Part of me wondered why anyone would want to leave the beauty of rural Ireland for the hustle of New York, but in reality there was nothing there for a lot of young people. If they wanted to earn money and have a job, they left for America and the UK.
It’s just a lovely story, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading this story of a family that loses touch and finds one another years later - with a bittersweet ending.
Recommended.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Oct 17, 2021
I can safely say, that I'm not 100% sure whether I liked Halloween Kills or not. There were parts that I genuinely enjoyed, in no small part thanks to Michael Myers. As in Halloween (2018), this Myers is a brutal and unforgiving one. His aesthetic is great and he's intimidating as fuck. This movie pulls no punches in making him out to be a monster, shying further away from the days of rooting for slasher villains. To top it off, Kills easily has some of the best Michael moments in the entire franchise. This is bolstered by some truly fantastic cinematography.
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
I'm pretty sure the first Michael Crichtom book I ever read was perhaps his most famous: "Jurassic Park" (back when I was still in school).
Why am I mentioning that fact? Since then, I've read many of his other thechno-thrillers (and one history thriller), none of which have really lived up to that first book. Of them all, however, this is perhaps the closest to doing so.
Taking the evolution of nano-technology as its basis, this novel can also be split into three distinct sections: the beginning (and end) sections at home, the wild strain in the desert wilds, and then the more evolved strain in the latter part. It's true that the ending doesn't quite tie-up with the beginning of the novel, but still a very enjoyable read.
Why am I mentioning that fact? Since then, I've read many of his other thechno-thrillers (and one history thriller), none of which have really lived up to that first book. Of them all, however, this is perhaps the closest to doing so.
Taking the evolution of nano-technology as its basis, this novel can also be split into three distinct sections: the beginning (and end) sections at home, the wild strain in the desert wilds, and then the more evolved strain in the latter part. It's true that the ending doesn't quite tie-up with the beginning of the novel, but still a very enjoyable read.
Zach Smith (62 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2019
Finally another view on the Transformers Universe that isnt Michael Bay.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I will give you a big heads up, I was not crazy about the idea of this movie due to Hollywood casting another female lead that is horrible unrealistic that this female that is a 10 in looks department. Michael Bay at least cast a realistic man named Shia that lets face it is no Brad Pitt. It was something normal people can relate to. Now being a gay male I found that the costar a male looked realistic and was relatable in having the crush on the 'hot' girl. No saying that they managed to sexualize it abit by showing male eye candy in boxers and the costar ripping his shirt off so I gave thaat a big thumbs up for me being the pig I am. Now moving on from the human bullshit part. The opening sequence takes place on the cybertron we all grew up to love and know. No crazy shit like the Cube is mentioned, you get an epic war scene with the majority of the original decepticons that actually look like decepticons, including soundwave and the purple guy that has one eye. I dont recall seeing megatron however, but its been awhile since I last saw it.
Anywho the movie goes on for character development for the unreal female lead which of course didnt really interest me. However there is a fierce battle between bumblebee and another decepticon and the idea of Bumblebee having a damaged voice modulator is carried over from the Michael Bay Transformers universe. Skipping forward to the introduction of the hero lead human finding bumblebee she is working on the vw beetle and she lays under the car to work on it and it looks just like when look at an transformer toy, you can see bumblebees head in the undercarriage, again freaking awesome!. So this movie made money which I am glad because I gave up on the Michael Bay transformer universe after he started slaughtering the autobots just like the Transformers Cartoon movie. So it is said we will see more from this group of writers and directors as they sort of reboot the universe and start making money again. Go see it, buy it. Snore factor of 2/10 for the stupid human parts.
Anywho the movie goes on for character development for the unreal female lead which of course didnt really interest me. However there is a fierce battle between bumblebee and another decepticon and the idea of Bumblebee having a damaged voice modulator is carried over from the Michael Bay Transformers universe. Skipping forward to the introduction of the hero lead human finding bumblebee she is working on the vw beetle and she lays under the car to work on it and it looks just like when look at an transformer toy, you can see bumblebees head in the undercarriage, again freaking awesome!. So this movie made money which I am glad because I gave up on the Michael Bay transformer universe after he started slaughtering the autobots just like the Transformers Cartoon movie. So it is said we will see more from this group of writers and directors as they sort of reboot the universe and start making money again. Go see it, buy it. Snore factor of 2/10 for the stupid human parts.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
The fall of the franchise.
Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris) now has a psychic connection with Michael Myers, she has visions showing who and where he is going to kill next.
If that sounds dumb to you, then trust me, the movie will feel dumb too.
Halloween 5 feels more like a Friday the 13th movie, filled with dumb teens getting picked off one by one, featuring some unrealistic subplot to distinguish it from other entries.
Gone is the eerie suspense, the music is a shadow of the original's score. Gone too is the tension of asking "where is Michael?" As Jamie's visions literally show us where he is.
There is also a weird change, in Halloween 4 Leslie L. Rohland played the part of Lindsey Wallace, shown as a friend to both Jamie and Rachel (Ellie Cornell), Leslie did not return for H5. In Halloween 5, they cast Wendy Foxworth as Tina Williams. What's confusing is Leslie and Tina are very similar to one another, they look alike and their characters were similar. In H5 they played off like Tina had known Jamie from before. So it begs the question, if you had to recast why not keep the same character? And if you had to change character, why not cast someone unlike Leslie? I don't know but it's always bugged me.
There are a couple of good things to say about it. Some death scenes are intense and brutal, the ending is good, intense with a decent twist.
Overall though, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers is the first entry in the series that really truly disappointed me, mostly due to its dumb story.
If that sounds dumb to you, then trust me, the movie will feel dumb too.
Halloween 5 feels more like a Friday the 13th movie, filled with dumb teens getting picked off one by one, featuring some unrealistic subplot to distinguish it from other entries.
Gone is the eerie suspense, the music is a shadow of the original's score. Gone too is the tension of asking "where is Michael?" As Jamie's visions literally show us where he is.
There is also a weird change, in Halloween 4 Leslie L. Rohland played the part of Lindsey Wallace, shown as a friend to both Jamie and Rachel (Ellie Cornell), Leslie did not return for H5. In Halloween 5, they cast Wendy Foxworth as Tina Williams. What's confusing is Leslie and Tina are very similar to one another, they look alike and their characters were similar. In H5 they played off like Tina had known Jamie from before. So it begs the question, if you had to recast why not keep the same character? And if you had to change character, why not cast someone unlike Leslie? I don't know but it's always bugged me.
There are a couple of good things to say about it. Some death scenes are intense and brutal, the ending is good, intense with a decent twist.
Overall though, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers is the first entry in the series that really truly disappointed me, mostly due to its dumb story.
