Search
Search results
April Rose Mossow (93 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you haven't seen the 1988 Child's Play, you'd be surprised by this decent film. If you have seen the original, you may keep looking for comparisons and come up short. There are a few comparisons to the original 1988 movie of the same title. Chucky has been revamped and recast to adhere to a younger generation of horror fans. While I missed Brad Dourif's sinister voice, I enjoyed the new life Mark Hamill brought to the sinister doll we all grew up with. This is a different Chucky, by far. Chucky is comical and slowly grows more and more evil as the movie reels on. But you can't help but feel a little sorry for the little guy. It's basically just bad programming as opposed to an evil soul inhabiting the toy. There are different deaths in the movie. While it's less predictable in comparison to the original, its entertaining to watch and not laggy like most remakes. :)
Weed Yo Screen
Lifestyle and Utilities
App
It’s time to give your iPhone an original psychedelic look ! With Weed Yo Screen you can...
LEGO Indiana Jones
7.7
Rate It
Video Game
LEGO Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures takes the fun and creative construction of LEGO and...
David McK (3587 KP) rated Jurassic World (2015) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020 (Updated Jun 21, 2022)
It's now over 20 years from the original Jurassic Park film, and time has moved on.
In both the real world and the fictional world of this movie.
Set back in the original location of Isla Sorna, this imagines that John Hammond's park has been open to the public for over 20 years: to a public that has largely grown inured to the Dinosaurs and demands a new attraction every 2 years or so.
Enter the genetically engineered hybrid Indominus Rex, which (of course) causes chaos when it gets free of its paddock...
This movie definitely takes its cue from the original film, complete with a pair of siblings lost in the wilderness as the Dino's run amok! For some reason, the effects also seem less impressive than the earlier film (perhaps just because we've gotten used to them? Yes, just like the visitors to the island...), which mixed animatronics with its Special Effects, to great effect.
In both the real world and the fictional world of this movie.
Set back in the original location of Isla Sorna, this imagines that John Hammond's park has been open to the public for over 20 years: to a public that has largely grown inured to the Dinosaurs and demands a new attraction every 2 years or so.
Enter the genetically engineered hybrid Indominus Rex, which (of course) causes chaos when it gets free of its paddock...
This movie definitely takes its cue from the original film, complete with a pair of siblings lost in the wilderness as the Dino's run amok! For some reason, the effects also seem less impressive than the earlier film (perhaps just because we've gotten used to them? Yes, just like the visitors to the island...), which mixed animatronics with its Special Effects, to great effect.
Dean (6927 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 25, 2022 (Updated Feb 25, 2022)
Unlikeable characters (2 more)
Very short
A massacre of ideas
Nothing new
Thought I'd give this a go as it's been a while since the previous versions. Other than setting it in the current time with influencers and current technology, this offers nothing new. Just a bunch of unlikeable characters to the predictable slaughter.
Following on the recent Halloween films trend of making a sequel to the original set decades later. We have a cameo from the original film final girl who has gone Linda Hamilton bad ass up for revenge. With some real T2 elements in some scenes. A very weak plot line as she and leatherface must be in their 70's now as nearly 50 years have passed from the original.
Gore fans will probably like it and fans of TCM films in general, for others there is no real depth to it and full of Slasher film clichés. Shame as it had potential but ends up a bit of a mess.
Following on the recent Halloween films trend of making a sequel to the original set decades later. We have a cameo from the original film final girl who has gone Linda Hamilton bad ass up for revenge. With some real T2 elements in some scenes. A very weak plot line as she and leatherface must be in their 70's now as nearly 50 years have passed from the original.
Gore fans will probably like it and fans of TCM films in general, for others there is no real depth to it and full of Slasher film clichés. Shame as it had potential but ends up a bit of a mess.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
May 30, 2018
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made, a true classic and a very good addition to the story. It tells what happened in the events leading up to the original film. The last shot of this film links to the first shot of the original.
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
Nothing new
When the first Zombieland came out in 2009, it was a wonderful and brilliant surprise and such a sleeper hit. There have been cries for a sequel for some time now and whilst 10 years is a big gap, I actually think this works in the films favour despite the fact that overall it's nothing new.
The good and bad thing about this film is that it is so similar to the original, both in style and even plot structure. Good because the original obviously worked, but bad because it just feels like we're watching more of the same. Right from the opening credits it sticks so closely to the original and I did enjoy this as it's exactly what you'd expect and it was great to see the characters back on screen again with all of their nuances. Even if some if these nuances, like the rules and bickering, did get a little bit stale towards the end. The problem is that the humour and the plot are not as good as the first film, and the new characters and ideas that have been introduced are either massively irritating (Madison) or just plain dull (Babylon). Thankfully Tallahassee, Colombus and Wichita bring this film back up to being good, even if it's not as good as the original, and there are still some pretty funny moments between them even if they're not as frequent as we'd like.
Overall a good sequel but not up to the standards of the original. It's rather sad when the best and funniest part of this film is the credits scene...
The good and bad thing about this film is that it is so similar to the original, both in style and even plot structure. Good because the original obviously worked, but bad because it just feels like we're watching more of the same. Right from the opening credits it sticks so closely to the original and I did enjoy this as it's exactly what you'd expect and it was great to see the characters back on screen again with all of their nuances. Even if some if these nuances, like the rules and bickering, did get a little bit stale towards the end. The problem is that the humour and the plot are not as good as the first film, and the new characters and ideas that have been introduced are either massively irritating (Madison) or just plain dull (Babylon). Thankfully Tallahassee, Colombus and Wichita bring this film back up to being good, even if it's not as good as the original, and there are still some pretty funny moments between them even if they're not as frequent as we'd like.
Overall a good sequel but not up to the standards of the original. It's rather sad when the best and funniest part of this film is the credits scene...
Raiden Legacy
Games
App
RAIDEN LEGACY, a four-title compilation of the mega-popular RAIDEN arcade series, includes RAIDEN,...
MusicCritics (472 KP) rated Carry Fire by Robert Plant in Music
Oct 25, 2017
Plant displays everything he’s learned along the way; Carry Fire's sophistication and mystique place it among the most ambitious and evocative albums of his legendary career.
Critic - Josh Hurst
Original Score: 4.5 out of 5
Read Review: https://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/robert-plant-carry-fire
Original Score: 4.5 out of 5
Read Review: https://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/robert-plant-carry-fire
Movie Critics (823 KP) rated Going in Style (2017) in Movies
Apr 14, 2017
Three old dudes rob a bank in this likeable heist movie that doesn't quite shortchange you, but doesn't exactly pay dividends either
Critic Review: Dave Calhoun - Time Out
Original Score: 3 out of 5
Full review: https://www.timeout.com/london/film/going-in-style-2016
Original Score: 3 out of 5
Full review: https://www.timeout.com/london/film/going-in-style-2016