Search
Search results
Bohan Reviews (215 KP) rated Then Came You (2018) in Movies
Aug 10, 2019
Occasionally Funny (2 more)
One interesting character
Ken Jeong
Casting (2 more)
Acting
Saccharine
Maisie Williams feels a little hammy and over-the-top, but it's the uncomfortable dynamic between Asa Butterfield and Nina Dobrev that stands out as arguably some of the worst casting that I have ever seen.
Full review:
https://www.bohanreviews.com/post/first-time-watches-june-july-2019
Full review:
https://www.bohanreviews.com/post/first-time-watches-june-july-2019
Dean (6921 KP) rated Never Cry Werewolf (2008) in Movies
Apr 30, 2019
An ok horror comedy, with a made for TV feel to it. It's pretty much a copy of the cult classic Fright Night, but this time with a Werewolf in place of a Vampire. This time round it's a girl (Nina Dobrev from Vampire diaries) who has to fight the new neighbour. Not a bad werewolf costume but this is far from scary and not that funny. It's not a patch on Fright Night.
Dean (6921 KP) rated Love Hard (2021) in Movies
May 2, 2022
Average Festive Rom-Com
A decent enough Rom-Com Netflix film set around Christmas time. Think the title is from 2 films that are most peoples fave Christmas films, Love Actually and Die Hard.
A journalist who writes about her bad online dates finally meets a great guy. So she travels across America to surprise him for Christmas, only to find out she has been Catfished. However the guy in the photo is in the same town and tries to get to know him.
Nina Dobrev is quite funny and it has a certain charm to it but nothing original really.
A journalist who writes about her bad online dates finally meets a great guy. So she travels across America to surprise him for Christmas, only to find out she has been Catfished. However the guy in the photo is in the same town and tries to get to know him.
Nina Dobrev is quite funny and it has a certain charm to it but nothing original really.
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Love Hard (2021) in Movies
Jul 31, 2022
Contains spoilers, click to show
After many failed online dates, a young woman turns her disasters into a columnist job. This doesn't stop her again trying to get a date though, she's matches with a guy on a dating app called josh and they really hit it off. They talk and text all the time and he seems a really great guy. After 2 weeks of speaking with him, she believes she has found the perfect guy, and flies 3000 miles to surprise him......... Only to find she has been catfished. In disgust she leaves and goes for a drink at a local bar, where the real josh turns up. After a disastrous attempt to seduce Tag (real josh), Josh offers to set Natalie up with Tag as long as she pretends to be his girlfriend until Xmas.
Despite the predictable outcome of the movie, I really enjoyed it. Nina dobrev is fab and plays a really likeable character who is also pretty funny, and Jimmy o. Yang who plays Josh fits well with Ninas character too as the awkward shy guy, who just wants to find love. This has definitely been added as one of my fav Xmas movies.
Despite the predictable outcome of the movie, I really enjoyed it. Nina dobrev is fab and plays a really likeable character who is also pretty funny, and Jimmy o. Yang who plays Josh fits well with Ninas character too as the awkward shy guy, who just wants to find love. This has definitely been added as one of my fav Xmas movies.
Sarah (126 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2018
The casting (1 more)
Keifer Sutherland
An Unnecessary Remake
I feel cheated. I've watched the original so many times, and wish I'd just watched it again. This was a completely unnecessary remake of what many consider to be a classic film (does it count as a classic from 1990?).
I can kind of "get" the idea of a remake or a "reboot", given the progress in technology and medical science in the space of almost 30 years, so to bring a more contemporary feel for a modern audience would make sense to some extent. Instead, a film that was really thought provoking was turned into something that felt like, in parts, Final Destination.
A couple of lines tied the new version to the old, as well as Keifer Sutherland - one of the original cast of medical students - plays the part of a "House"-type doctor teaching the "Flatliners" in the new version.
The casting wasn't ideal - for instance, James Norton's American accent is kind of concerning. If he was a must-have for the film, couldn't his part have been as an international student?! Nina Dobrev played Elena from The Vampire Diaries in a lab coat. Similarly, the characters were a bit flat and one-dimensional. For instance, Ray used to be a firefighter. Great, where are we going with that? Oh, right, it never gets mentioned again!
Strangely, a lot of the film feels very rushed, with no real development of the stories of the individual characters or of how they go about the actual flatlining itself, while simultaneously feeling like very little of note actually happens.
Honestly, although the original is going to feel a little dated now, watch that instead of this. I feel like I want my money back - and we watched it on TV...
I can kind of "get" the idea of a remake or a "reboot", given the progress in technology and medical science in the space of almost 30 years, so to bring a more contemporary feel for a modern audience would make sense to some extent. Instead, a film that was really thought provoking was turned into something that felt like, in parts, Final Destination.
A couple of lines tied the new version to the old, as well as Keifer Sutherland - one of the original cast of medical students - plays the part of a "House"-type doctor teaching the "Flatliners" in the new version.
The casting wasn't ideal - for instance, James Norton's American accent is kind of concerning. If he was a must-have for the film, couldn't his part have been as an international student?! Nina Dobrev played Elena from The Vampire Diaries in a lab coat. Similarly, the characters were a bit flat and one-dimensional. For instance, Ray used to be a firefighter. Great, where are we going with that? Oh, right, it never gets mentioned again!
Strangely, a lot of the film feels very rushed, with no real development of the stories of the individual characters or of how they go about the actual flatlining itself, while simultaneously feeling like very little of note actually happens.
Honestly, although the original is going to feel a little dated now, watch that instead of this. I feel like I want my money back - and we watched it on TV...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
I firmly believe that this is one of the best movies on the face of the planet. Anyone who knows me and knows my reviews knows how much it bothers me when film adaptations are so bad or so off or they just lose everything the book had. The exact opposite happens here. I think what makes this movie so good and so well put together is that it's still Stephen's story. He wrote the book, then the screenplay, then he directed it so it was his entire vision coming to life on screen and it worked. I think if anyone else would've directed or wrote the script, it wouldn't have translated so well.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is based upon the best selling novel written by Stephen Chbosky and published in 1999. The film is directed by the author himself who makes the entire film follow the epistolary style novel very well. The film brings to light the struggles of an awkward adolescent boy named Charlie (Logan Lerman, Percy Jackson & the Olympians) and his struggles with trying to cope with the recent death of his best friend who has committed suicide and the not so recent death of his beloved aunt. While coping with both deaths Charlie also has to try his hardest to get through his first day of high school.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.