Search
Search results
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
Movie Critics (823 KP) rated Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1999) in Movies
Apr 15, 2017
Lock, Stock'' is fun, in a slapdash way; it has an exuberance, and in a time when movies follow formulas like zombies, it's alive
Critic: Roger Ebert
Original Score: 3 out of 4
Read review: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lock-stock-and-two-smoking-barrels-1999
Original Score: 3 out of 4
Read review: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lock-stock-and-two-smoking-barrels-1999
Movie Critics (823 KP) rated The Dinner (2017) in Movies
May 4, 2017
Dull, shouty, unconvincing film about four people discussing their children over a fancy meal
Critic- Peter Bradshaw - The Guardian
Original Score - 1 out of 5
Read Review: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/feb/10/the-dinner-review-steve-coogan-laura-linney-richard-gere-rebecca-hall
Original Score - 1 out of 5
Read Review: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/feb/10/the-dinner-review-steve-coogan-laura-linney-richard-gere-rebecca-hall
Movie Critics (823 KP) rated Gifted (2017) in Movies
May 10, 2017
I never expected to fully enjoy Gifted as much as I did, but that’s what happens when great filmmaking gets teamed up with solid performers and a worthwhile script.
Critic- Jeremy Lebens
Original Score- 8 out of 10
Read Review: http://www.thedailyrotation.com/gifted-review/
Original Score- 8 out of 10
Read Review: http://www.thedailyrotation.com/gifted-review/
BookCritics (259 KP) rated The Devil Crept In in Books
May 16, 2017
The results are eerily satisfying and really hit the spot. Note to self: no trips out to the woods anytime soon.
Critic- TheBiblioSanctum
Original Score- 4 out of 5
Read Review: https://bibliosanctum.com/2017/02/28/book-review-the-devil-crept-in-by-ania-ahlborn/
Original Score- 4 out of 5
Read Review: https://bibliosanctum.com/2017/02/28/book-review-the-devil-crept-in-by-ania-ahlborn/
Movie Critics (823 KP) rated Maudie (2017) in Movies
May 26, 2017
Though MAUDIE might be a slow watch for some, it is a well crafted and effective biopic of MAUDIE and her troubled relationship.
Critic- Gilbert Seah
Original Score: 3.5 out of 5
Read Review:https://festivalreviews.org/2017/04/14/film-review-maudie-canadaireland-2016-12/
Original Score: 3.5 out of 5
Read Review:https://festivalreviews.org/2017/04/14/film-review-maudie-canadaireland-2016-12/