Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
What? Why? How?
Right, quick disclaimer - this is going to be less of a review of the movie and more of a rant on how this movie ruins any Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Invisible Man (1933) in Movies
Mar 4, 2020
Universal Monster
This movie is such a classic, it came out after dracula, frankenstein and the mummy. Out of all the universal monster movies, i like this one the most. It combines sci-fi, horror, psychological espects, and overall the invisible man just being a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway. This classic movie is based off of a H.G. Wells novel, and if you dont know who that is, look him up..."The War of the Worlds".
The plot: While researching a new drug, Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) stumbles on a potion that can make him invisible. When he reveals his new ability to his old mentor (Henry Travers) and his fiancée (Gloria Stuart), it's clear that a side effect of the potion is insanity. Jack goes on a violent rampage, and the police struggle to hunt him down, unable to see their target, while his mentor and his former partner (William Harrigan) desperately try to devise a plan to capture him.
You have Claude Rains playing "The Invisible Man", he is excellent in this film. Cause like i said his charcter is just a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway but has a heart of gold for his love.
If you havent seen this film, i would highly recordmend it, cause it is fantasic and phenomenal.
The plot: While researching a new drug, Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) stumbles on a potion that can make him invisible. When he reveals his new ability to his old mentor (Henry Travers) and his fiancée (Gloria Stuart), it's clear that a side effect of the potion is insanity. Jack goes on a violent rampage, and the police struggle to hunt him down, unable to see their target, while his mentor and his former partner (William Harrigan) desperately try to devise a plan to capture him.
You have Claude Rains playing "The Invisible Man", he is excellent in this film. Cause like i said his charcter is just a dick/asshole to everybody in his pathway but has a heart of gold for his love.
If you havent seen this film, i would highly recordmend it, cause it is fantasic and phenomenal.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation (2018) in Movies
Jul 31, 2018
More of the same as the cast of the Hotel decide to go on vacation (the family decide to take all their friends obviously), on a cruise ship.
The overall plot was OK, but quote obvious, but the humour was definitely turned down compared to previous films in the series.
And what is with the obligatory DJ battle scenes?! Does Sandler have a load of low quality dance tracks he has to shoe-horn into movies as part of his contract now?! Just a total nonsense ending.
Having said that, my kids loved it.
I think I have unconsciously removed a couple of marks simply because my kids insisted on replicating the finale's dance moves for the next three hours (this makes me sound like a monster but once you know what that involves you'll understand!).
The overall plot was OK, but quote obvious, but the humour was definitely turned down compared to previous films in the series.
And what is with the obligatory DJ battle scenes?! Does Sandler have a load of low quality dance tracks he has to shoe-horn into movies as part of his contract now?! Just a total nonsense ending.
Having said that, my kids loved it.
I think I have unconsciously removed a couple of marks simply because my kids insisted on replicating the finale's dance moves for the next three hours (this makes me sound like a monster but once you know what that involves you'll understand!).
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Firewall (2006) in Movies
May 26, 2020 (Updated May 26, 2020)
We've Seen This Done Before: A Dozen Times
Firewall- is a movie, that I fell like I've seen, watched oe heard of before. Thats because it is. Cause you will get these types of movies mixed up. Hostage and negotitation movies, cause their all the same.
If you like or seen "John Q", "Hostage", "Inside Man", "The Town", "The Negotitaor" and "Money Monster". Than you kinda of like this one. The Problem is that, movies like "Inside Man", "The Town" and "John Q" are better. The other problem with this one is that, the final battle just ends so quickly, badly and pointless. Like the bad guy just dies and than boom end. What?? The whole movie was building up suspense between the main charcter and bad guy, and than he just dies with one hit/blow and thats it. The whole movie felt pointless, because of that. The whole suspense just gone, you felt nothing. Felt like the whole movie was pointless and it was.
The plot: Bank security expert Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) builds a career on his expertise in designing theft-proof computer systems for financial institutions. However, a criminal mastermind (Paul Bettany) kidnaps his family, and he must work feverishly to find a way to break into his own system and steal $100 million, for the lives of his loved ones hang in the balance.
Paul Bettany was excellet as the villian.
Other than that, this movie is a decent suspense thriller and that has a bad ending that makes this whole movie pointless.
If you like or seen "John Q", "Hostage", "Inside Man", "The Town", "The Negotitaor" and "Money Monster". Than you kinda of like this one. The Problem is that, movies like "Inside Man", "The Town" and "John Q" are better. The other problem with this one is that, the final battle just ends so quickly, badly and pointless. Like the bad guy just dies and than boom end. What?? The whole movie was building up suspense between the main charcter and bad guy, and than he just dies with one hit/blow and thats it. The whole movie felt pointless, because of that. The whole suspense just gone, you felt nothing. Felt like the whole movie was pointless and it was.
The plot: Bank security expert Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) builds a career on his expertise in designing theft-proof computer systems for financial institutions. However, a criminal mastermind (Paul Bettany) kidnaps his family, and he must work feverishly to find a way to break into his own system and steal $100 million, for the lives of his loved ones hang in the balance.
Paul Bettany was excellet as the villian.
Other than that, this movie is a decent suspense thriller and that has a bad ending that makes this whole movie pointless.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Abominable Snowman (1957) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018 (Updated Mar 23, 2018)
Solid Hammer genre movie. Really an odd piece of atomic-era pessimism, as you'd expect from famously glum screenwriter Nigel Kneale; expedition to track down the Yeti goes rather awry, and the question becomes that of who the real monster is.
A bit dated now, especially in terms of the production values - there are some exterior shots filmed in the Pyrenees, but all the dialogue scenes were done on a sound stage. Despite being the main character, Peter Cushing (in only his second film for Hammer) is second-billed to the American Tucker in the hope of flogging the movie to the States (pretty much standard practice at the time). Decent script ticks all the plot boxes; curiously ambiguous ending doesn't hurt either, but the Yeti suits are not much cop, it must be said. Probably worth watching if you like unusually brainy B-movies.
A bit dated now, especially in terms of the production values - there are some exterior shots filmed in the Pyrenees, but all the dialogue scenes were done on a sound stage. Despite being the main character, Peter Cushing (in only his second film for Hammer) is second-billed to the American Tucker in the hope of flogging the movie to the States (pretty much standard practice at the time). Decent script ticks all the plot boxes; curiously ambiguous ending doesn't hurt either, but the Yeti suits are not much cop, it must be said. Probably worth watching if you like unusually brainy B-movies.
Leigh J (71 KP) rated The Deadly Spawn (1983) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Creatures from the Black... Meteor!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A meteor comes crashing down to Earth one night... and it's inhabitants are a little bitey! Two campers witness the crash and soon enough fall victim to the sharp-toothed monsters, who then set their sights on a small town. After 2 grizzly murders, the monsters move onto another House. But these residents (one being a kid obsessed with Horror and Monster Movies) are willing to put up more of a fight against these creatures.
I really like The Deadly Spawn. It gets a lot of negative reviews and I have no idea why; it's actually very good... I've definitely seen a lot worse! It is quite tongue in cheek (which honestly makes it fun and terrifying at the same time) but comes with some very decent gore and the creatures look really good as well... pretty realistic! I enjoy it every single time I dig it out and give it a watch... one for the Creature Feature fans!
I really like The Deadly Spawn. It gets a lot of negative reviews and I have no idea why; it's actually very good... I've definitely seen a lot worse! It is quite tongue in cheek (which honestly makes it fun and terrifying at the same time) but comes with some very decent gore and the creatures look really good as well... pretty realistic! I enjoy it every single time I dig it out and give it a watch... one for the Creature Feature fans!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Depraved (2019) in Movies
Dec 29, 2019
Good but Needed a More Inventive Story
In this intriguing retelling of Frankenstein’s monster, a man finds himself the victim of a kidnapping and gruesome science experiment.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 4
Memorability: 1
Pace: 10
One of the things Depraved does extremely well is keep you engaged. We move from one scene to the next at a pretty quick clip. Even during scenes with heavier dialogue, there are no lingering moments which I appreciate. Thoroughly enjoyed the speed as the movie didn’t feel like two hours in the slightest.
Plot: 5
The sum of the story’s parts doesn’t really pass the smell test. Fast is good, yes, but there are some speed bumps that are hard to overlook. It felt like it was trying so hard to mirror Frankenstein at times that it never fully tried to do its own thing.
Resolution: 5
Overall: 73
I try to support indie movies as often as I can. And not just Fox Searchlight type of movies but those up and coming from lesser known studios. Films like Depraved can find themselves outgunned and overmatched but I appreciate what directors like Larry Fessenden are able to do with less. I hope to see more of his work in the future.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 4
Memorability: 1
Pace: 10
One of the things Depraved does extremely well is keep you engaged. We move from one scene to the next at a pretty quick clip. Even during scenes with heavier dialogue, there are no lingering moments which I appreciate. Thoroughly enjoyed the speed as the movie didn’t feel like two hours in the slightest.
Plot: 5
The sum of the story’s parts doesn’t really pass the smell test. Fast is good, yes, but there are some speed bumps that are hard to overlook. It felt like it was trying so hard to mirror Frankenstein at times that it never fully tried to do its own thing.
Resolution: 5
Overall: 73
I try to support indie movies as often as I can. And not just Fox Searchlight type of movies but those up and coming from lesser known studios. Films like Depraved can find themselves outgunned and overmatched but I appreciate what directors like Larry Fessenden are able to do with less. I hope to see more of his work in the future.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
May 30, 2019 (Updated May 30, 2019)
Japan's biggest movie star returns to the screen in a solid, entertaining sequel (and I'm not talking about Ken Watanabe). Eco-terrorists steal a new gadget that allows people to communicate with and control giant monsters, intending to use it to save the environment by getting the world's monsters to destroy industrial civilisation: possibly not the most thought-through plan in history, but it has originality on its side.
I am not the best person to be objective about a new Godzilla movie, but I had a good time with this film. Even so, it does have obvious flaws: Kyle Chandler is kind of useless as the supposed protagonist, and the story does have a very 1990s vibe to it which I expect some people may have an issue with. However, the tone of the film is just about perfect: the Toho monsters look and behave exactly as you'd hope, and the film incorporates lots of little details from the original movies, most obviously the classic musical themes for Godzilla and Mothra. If you like Japanese monster movies, I think you will enjoy this movie a lot - if not, well, it's about a dinosaur, a dragon, a moth and a pterodactyl doing all-in wrestling together; whether you think that is an outrageously cool idea or unbelievably stupid is a matter of personal taste, but the movie itself is unlikely to change your opinion. Bring on the big ape!
I am not the best person to be objective about a new Godzilla movie, but I had a good time with this film. Even so, it does have obvious flaws: Kyle Chandler is kind of useless as the supposed protagonist, and the story does have a very 1990s vibe to it which I expect some people may have an issue with. However, the tone of the film is just about perfect: the Toho monsters look and behave exactly as you'd hope, and the film incorporates lots of little details from the original movies, most obviously the classic musical themes for Godzilla and Mothra. If you like Japanese monster movies, I think you will enjoy this movie a lot - if not, well, it's about a dinosaur, a dragon, a moth and a pterodactyl doing all-in wrestling together; whether you think that is an outrageously cool idea or unbelievably stupid is a matter of personal taste, but the movie itself is unlikely to change your opinion. Bring on the big ape!
Awix (3310 KP) rated Victor Frankenstein (2015) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018 (Updated Feb 25, 2018)
I, Igor
If you're one of those people who thinks that the story of Frankenstein pays far too much attention to him actually making the monster, and not enough to the details and ups-and-downs of his relationship with Igor the hunchback, then this is the film for you (although if that's your attitude, you really don't deserve Frankenstein movies at all). Deformed circus clown becomes brilliant self-taught surgeon and anatomist, is rescued by unconventional medical student, gets put to work stitching.
James McAvoy could have been a great Frankenstein, but not with a script like this one - narration keeps banging on about how familiar we all are with this story, before going off into new and wildly eccentric territory - Igor has a romance with a trapeze artist, there are problems with steampunk zombie chimps, etc. Actual creation of famous monster only happens in last ten minutes. Film has zero feeling for historical setting (a version of Victorian London where nobody bats an eyelid if your name is Igor or Frankenstein).
All the major themes of Shelley's story are basically sidelined in favour of overwrought emotional drama. Best thing in it is possibly Andrew Scott as a detective looking to bust Dr F for interfering with zoo animals; his scenes with McAvoy are actually pretty interesting. The kind of film that seems to be afraid the audience will get bored and wander away if there isn't an outbreak of slow-mo or CGI or whatever every five minutes. How does Max Landis manage to keep selling scripts like this one? Moderately good-looking but a massive waste of potential.
James McAvoy could have been a great Frankenstein, but not with a script like this one - narration keeps banging on about how familiar we all are with this story, before going off into new and wildly eccentric territory - Igor has a romance with a trapeze artist, there are problems with steampunk zombie chimps, etc. Actual creation of famous monster only happens in last ten minutes. Film has zero feeling for historical setting (a version of Victorian London where nobody bats an eyelid if your name is Igor or Frankenstein).
All the major themes of Shelley's story are basically sidelined in favour of overwrought emotional drama. Best thing in it is possibly Andrew Scott as a detective looking to bust Dr F for interfering with zoo animals; his scenes with McAvoy are actually pretty interesting. The kind of film that seems to be afraid the audience will get bored and wander away if there isn't an outbreak of slow-mo or CGI or whatever every five minutes. How does Max Landis manage to keep selling scripts like this one? Moderately good-looking but a massive waste of potential.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Horrified: Universal Monsters Strategy Board Game in Tabletop Games
Oct 31, 2020
Horrified is a co-op board game based on the beloved Universal Monsters properties, and it's pretty damn fun.
First off, I love this series of movies. I recently bought a Blu-Ray boxset of them that I've been slowly working through, and they are still as entertaining now as they were when I was a kid.
Horrified pits 2-5 players against a selection of these horror icons, requiring them to complete character specific tasks before ultimately attempting to defeat whichever beast chosen, saving villagers along the way.
The roster is made up of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and his Bride, The Wolfman, The Invisible Man, The Mummy, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Each monster brings different objectives to the table in order to slay them, adding a large amount of variety to multiple games.
You can also play around with the amount of monsters you take on at once, adding different levels of difficulty to proceedings.
At first glance, the rules and many game pieces can seen overwhelming, but once the understanding sets in (there's an extremely handy tutorial video on the games official YouTube channel), it's a fun and sometimes tense experience, that is easy enough for any player to grasp.
It really does rely heavily on co-op and strategy to secure a victory, if you don't work together, then death is all but guaranteed!
I would happily recommend Horrified to any board game fan, especially those who like a bit of horror thrown in for good measure.
A huge thank you to @Smashbomb for sending me this via a giveaway (seriously go and apply to them!). Nice one!
First off, I love this series of movies. I recently bought a Blu-Ray boxset of them that I've been slowly working through, and they are still as entertaining now as they were when I was a kid.
Horrified pits 2-5 players against a selection of these horror icons, requiring them to complete character specific tasks before ultimately attempting to defeat whichever beast chosen, saving villagers along the way.
The roster is made up of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and his Bride, The Wolfman, The Invisible Man, The Mummy, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Each monster brings different objectives to the table in order to slay them, adding a large amount of variety to multiple games.
You can also play around with the amount of monsters you take on at once, adding different levels of difficulty to proceedings.
At first glance, the rules and many game pieces can seen overwhelming, but once the understanding sets in (there's an extremely handy tutorial video on the games official YouTube channel), it's a fun and sometimes tense experience, that is easy enough for any player to grasp.
It really does rely heavily on co-op and strategy to secure a victory, if you don't work together, then death is all but guaranteed!
I would happily recommend Horrified to any board game fan, especially those who like a bit of horror thrown in for good measure.
A huge thank you to @Smashbomb for sending me this via a giveaway (seriously go and apply to them!). Nice one!