Search
Search results
David McK (3623 KP) rated Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in Movies
Jan 15, 2023
1190 sequel to the original Gremlins movie, relocating the action to New York and (largely) to the inside of a tech moguls hi-tech tower (think Trump Towers), with - of course - the Mogwai Gizmo getting wet and spawning more of the mischievous Gremlins, who basically run amok in what amounts to a live-action (well, puppeteer action) comedy horror Looney Tunes film!
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 3, 2019
Not as bad as expected
I can't lie, when I heard Will Smith was playing the genie in this I pretty much wrote this film off for good. Whilst it isnt quite the car crash I'd expected, it pales in comparison to the original animated version.
Naomi Scott is great as Jasmine and has a fantastic voice, and she outperforms everyone else in this film. Mena Massoud is enjoyable to watch but lacking in a bit of Aladdin's charm. Strangely I didn't hate Will Smith as the genie. Don't get me wrong I didn't love him either but I didn't want to cry everytime he was on screen (although I did cringe a few times). In fact the worst person in this film was Jafar. I really don't know what they were thinking, he isn't sinister or slimy, he's just laughable. Not a villain youd be afraid of.
The film itself follows the original plot fairly well, with a lot of nods and quotes to the original too. I do think the ending and final stand off against Jafar was a little poor. Whilst I wasn't expecting them to completely follow the original, there are some bits that I'm disappointed weren't included. And of course there's the songs. The songs really make this watchable although sadly they don't have quite the magic of the animated version. It also made me laugh that Guy Ritchie couldn't resist throwing in some of his trademark slow motion and camera angles. Not many, admittedly he has toned it down a lot but there's still a few Ritchie moments.
This isnt a bad live action film, but sadly it isnt a great one either. But all things considered it could have been much worse!
Naomi Scott is great as Jasmine and has a fantastic voice, and she outperforms everyone else in this film. Mena Massoud is enjoyable to watch but lacking in a bit of Aladdin's charm. Strangely I didn't hate Will Smith as the genie. Don't get me wrong I didn't love him either but I didn't want to cry everytime he was on screen (although I did cringe a few times). In fact the worst person in this film was Jafar. I really don't know what they were thinking, he isn't sinister or slimy, he's just laughable. Not a villain youd be afraid of.
The film itself follows the original plot fairly well, with a lot of nods and quotes to the original too. I do think the ending and final stand off against Jafar was a little poor. Whilst I wasn't expecting them to completely follow the original, there are some bits that I'm disappointed weren't included. And of course there's the songs. The songs really make this watchable although sadly they don't have quite the magic of the animated version. It also made me laugh that Guy Ritchie couldn't resist throwing in some of his trademark slow motion and camera angles. Not many, admittedly he has toned it down a lot but there's still a few Ritchie moments.
This isnt a bad live action film, but sadly it isnt a great one either. But all things considered it could have been much worse!
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...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Day of the Dead (1985) in Movies
Apr 1, 2020
Bub The Zombie (1 more)
Capt. Rhodes
Night, Dawn and Day: The Perfect Trilogy
Day of the Dead- is the final movie in George's trilogy. It started with Night, than Dawn and now Day. The perfect trilogy about surival, surviving, surival of the finest and the livng dead. With great charcters, excellent villians and of course the zombies. In this one you have, Bub the zombie and the evil Capt. Rhodies. So thats a plus.
The plot: Trapped in a missile silo, a small team of scientists, civilians and trigger-happy soldiers battle desperately to ensure the survival of the human race, but tension inside the base is reaching breaking-point, and the zombies are gathering outside.
Romero originally intended the film to be "the Gone with the Wind of zombie films. This forced Romero to scale back his story, rewriting the script and adjusting his original vision to fit the smaller budget.
A total of five scripts were written as Romero wrestled with the film's concepts and the budgetary constraints. The first draft was over 200 pages, which he later condensed to 122 pages. This is the true original script, and to date no copies of it have come to light. This version was likely rejected because UFDC felt it was too expensive for them to produce even with an R rating. Romero subsequently scaled down the scope of this script into a 165-page draft (often erroneously referred to as the original version), then condensed it again to a 104-page draft labeled the 'second version, second draft' in an unsuccessful final attempt to get the story within budget parameters. When this failed, he drastically altered the original story concept and ultimately produced a shooting draft that numbered only 88 pages.
Its a perfect ending for a excellent and phenomenal trilogy.
The plot: Trapped in a missile silo, a small team of scientists, civilians and trigger-happy soldiers battle desperately to ensure the survival of the human race, but tension inside the base is reaching breaking-point, and the zombies are gathering outside.
Romero originally intended the film to be "the Gone with the Wind of zombie films. This forced Romero to scale back his story, rewriting the script and adjusting his original vision to fit the smaller budget.
A total of five scripts were written as Romero wrestled with the film's concepts and the budgetary constraints. The first draft was over 200 pages, which he later condensed to 122 pages. This is the true original script, and to date no copies of it have come to light. This version was likely rejected because UFDC felt it was too expensive for them to produce even with an R rating. Romero subsequently scaled down the scope of this script into a 165-page draft (often erroneously referred to as the original version), then condensed it again to a 104-page draft labeled the 'second version, second draft' in an unsuccessful final attempt to get the story within budget parameters. When this failed, he drastically altered the original story concept and ultimately produced a shooting draft that numbered only 88 pages.
Its a perfect ending for a excellent and phenomenal trilogy.
LF
Learning from Las Vegas
Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour
Book
Upon its publication by the MIT Press in 1972, Learning from Las Vegas was immediately influential...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated My Bloody Valentine 3-D (2009) in Movies
Jan 13, 2021
One of the avalanche of classic horror remakes to surface during the 00s, My Bloody Valentine (in "spectacular" 3D of course) isn't the worst of them by a long shot, but it still suffers from the soul-less-ness that the majority of them seem all to keen to pack in.
Its certainly more action packed and gory than it's 80s older sibling. The violence on display packs a punch for sure, some of it looks great, some of its looks terrible. The Harry Warden killer, much like the Michaels and Jasons of this remake era, is more of a machine than before. Relentless, brutal, faster, and pretty intimidating as far as these things go. It also packs in a fair amount of character development, which is a nice touch that gives the whole narrative some much needed gravitas, and the cast all do a good job with the by-the-numbers slasher-remake screenplay, with highlights being Jaime King and the ever reliable Tom Atkins.
You know how these things go though, and the simple fact is that this do over isn't as good as the original. It lacks the realness and charm (there's that word again) that the original had. There's a twist near the end that is designed to pull the rug out from under fans of the original, and it's actually a pretty interesting one, albeit executed poorly, and requires the viewer to really suspend disbelief in order to glaze over some gaping plot holes.
All in all, it's gory and fun enough to easily pass a couple of hours, and manages to feel like a homage to the original, rather than a straight up copy, and that I can respect, but ultimately, it's not a strong argument for the case of remakes.
Its certainly more action packed and gory than it's 80s older sibling. The violence on display packs a punch for sure, some of it looks great, some of its looks terrible. The Harry Warden killer, much like the Michaels and Jasons of this remake era, is more of a machine than before. Relentless, brutal, faster, and pretty intimidating as far as these things go. It also packs in a fair amount of character development, which is a nice touch that gives the whole narrative some much needed gravitas, and the cast all do a good job with the by-the-numbers slasher-remake screenplay, with highlights being Jaime King and the ever reliable Tom Atkins.
You know how these things go though, and the simple fact is that this do over isn't as good as the original. It lacks the realness and charm (there's that word again) that the original had. There's a twist near the end that is designed to pull the rug out from under fans of the original, and it's actually a pretty interesting one, albeit executed poorly, and requires the viewer to really suspend disbelief in order to glaze over some gaping plot holes.
All in all, it's gory and fun enough to easily pass a couple of hours, and manages to feel like a homage to the original, rather than a straight up copy, and that I can respect, but ultimately, it's not a strong argument for the case of remakes.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Wowee! From the ridiculous to the sublime. This is how to make a Star Trek movie! If you were trying to bring back the action and fun of the original TV series, then what better than to bring back one of the original villains in a sequel to that story? And being able to cast the original actor (Ricardo Montalban) is just perfect.
Nicholas Meyer also clearly had the same frustrations about that first movie. The film barely pauses for breath. Interestingly, it clearly reuses footage from the original movie in travelling to the Enterprise in space dock, but cuts that 6 minute special-effects-porn-fest to about 20 seconds! It’s a striking comparison!
The movie “introduces” Kirstie (“Cheers”) Alley as Vulcan officer Saavik (although she was in a student-made feature the year before). She makes quite an impression. Also new to the series is Merritt Buttrick, playing Kirk’s son David. Sadly, like Khambatta from the last film, his Trek-voyage was to be short lived. Although he appeared in Star Trek III, he died of Aids just three years later.
The movie is also notable for launching the late James Horner onto the world stage as a leading film composer. Horner cleverly associates the “ship” in starship with a roistering seafaring motif that would be equally at home in a Hornblower movie as it is here. I remember leaving the cinema when this was released and heading STRAIGHT into HMV to buy the vinyl soundtrack!
There are very few things I can find to critique in this movie. It all holds up pretty well, even after nearly 40 years (MAN, I FEEL OLD NOW!) The only scene that perhaps grates with modern sensitivities is in the (supposedly comic) “lady driver” reactions from Kirk.
Nicholas Meyer also clearly had the same frustrations about that first movie. The film barely pauses for breath. Interestingly, it clearly reuses footage from the original movie in travelling to the Enterprise in space dock, but cuts that 6 minute special-effects-porn-fest to about 20 seconds! It’s a striking comparison!
The movie “introduces” Kirstie (“Cheers”) Alley as Vulcan officer Saavik (although she was in a student-made feature the year before). She makes quite an impression. Also new to the series is Merritt Buttrick, playing Kirk’s son David. Sadly, like Khambatta from the last film, his Trek-voyage was to be short lived. Although he appeared in Star Trek III, he died of Aids just three years later.
The movie is also notable for launching the late James Horner onto the world stage as a leading film composer. Horner cleverly associates the “ship” in starship with a roistering seafaring motif that would be equally at home in a Hornblower movie as it is here. I remember leaving the cinema when this was released and heading STRAIGHT into HMV to buy the vinyl soundtrack!
There are very few things I can find to critique in this movie. It all holds up pretty well, even after nearly 40 years (MAN, I FEEL OLD NOW!) The only scene that perhaps grates with modern sensitivities is in the (supposedly comic) “lady driver” reactions from Kirk.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blair Witch (2016) in Movies
Aug 14, 2017
Yeah, I preferred this to the original...
The original Blair Witch movie came out in 1999 (wow, where has the time gone?!) in the good old days when you could get hold of a US DVD import in the UK before a movie was even released on UK cinema screens. I remember The Blair Witch Project being released in the UK on Halloween, the same day that the US DVD was delivered to my house! I excitedly sat down to watch it that evening with my family while everyone else had to go out in the cold rainy weather to watch it at the cinema, and I remember at the end of the movie we all kind of looked at each other as if to say “is that it…?!” All the hype, all the usual crap about it being absolutely terrifying and the scariest movie ever made and it was just a bunch of people getting spooked in the woods! To be fair, it wasn’t that bad, but it just wasn’t as scary or as fantastic as we’d been led to believe. The movie spawned a forgettable sequel and since then, despite being done to death, far superior found footage movies have come along and done it all a hell of a lot better. Then, out of the blue in July last year, a movie which had been previously marketed as ‘The Woods’ was revealed to actually be ‘Blair Witch’. The trailer looked OK, not great but interesting enough. But, once again we’re being subjected to all the usual marketing crap about it being terrifying and the scariest thing you’ve ever seen… blah, blah, blah…
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Quatermass Experiment (2005) in Movies
Sep 14, 2020
The first U.K. Maned mission to space vanishes off course only to return with two two of it's three crew missing and the third unable to communicate. As Professor Quatermass and his team try to find out what happened they discover that they come to realise that the rocket may have returned with more than they first thought.
As remakes go This one is quite good, it follows the same basic script as the original and the modernisation (mostly) works. The film doesn't go for much in the way of monster effects, relying instead on building atmosphere and tension which helps it keep the feel of the original 1955 version. It also helps that the original writer, Nigel Kneale, was also consulted on this remake.
This version of the film does have a very (modern) British feel to it which is mostly from the fact that is was made by the BBC so has actors that have appeared in other BBC sic Fi shows, most noticeably David Tennant and Mark Gatiss.
I do have a couple of problems with this film though, firstly the main set, used though tout the first half of the film does look to much like a,well film set. The hospital ward, MoD offices and press conference room all appear to be in the same building and, in fact in one scene, the camera pans from one room to the next making the whole thing look as if it was set up in a warehouse or large stage, which it probability was for filming but you shouldn't realy notice that in the finished film.
The other issue was some of the costumes. The film seems to be set in time it was filmed (2007) but some of the costumes don't seem to fit. One reporter looks like a 'teddy boy' whilst one looks like she's from the 20's and there's a scene with 80's/90's looking goths (Yes I know there are still goths but the look has changed a bit through the decades, as with most looks).
I can't quite work out if the remake looses anything from the original, in some ways the threat seems bigger but the ending seems less climatic. The final scene takes place in an art gallery instead of a church but this is due to a slight change in some of the symbology in the film (and probably because the BBC have had complainants when they have blown up churches in the past).
The original had scenes that stuck with me ( I was quite young when i first saw it) and I feel that the remake doesn't have this effect, although that could just be my age now. However the remake does up the tension and it does feel that there is more riding on Quatermass' success
Apart from those points the film is good. Fans of the original will recognise it for what it is but new views won't need any knowledge of the original to watch it.
As remakes go This one is quite good, it follows the same basic script as the original and the modernisation (mostly) works. The film doesn't go for much in the way of monster effects, relying instead on building atmosphere and tension which helps it keep the feel of the original 1955 version. It also helps that the original writer, Nigel Kneale, was also consulted on this remake.
This version of the film does have a very (modern) British feel to it which is mostly from the fact that is was made by the BBC so has actors that have appeared in other BBC sic Fi shows, most noticeably David Tennant and Mark Gatiss.
I do have a couple of problems with this film though, firstly the main set, used though tout the first half of the film does look to much like a,well film set. The hospital ward, MoD offices and press conference room all appear to be in the same building and, in fact in one scene, the camera pans from one room to the next making the whole thing look as if it was set up in a warehouse or large stage, which it probability was for filming but you shouldn't realy notice that in the finished film.
The other issue was some of the costumes. The film seems to be set in time it was filmed (2007) but some of the costumes don't seem to fit. One reporter looks like a 'teddy boy' whilst one looks like she's from the 20's and there's a scene with 80's/90's looking goths (Yes I know there are still goths but the look has changed a bit through the decades, as with most looks).
I can't quite work out if the remake looses anything from the original, in some ways the threat seems bigger but the ending seems less climatic. The final scene takes place in an art gallery instead of a church but this is due to a slight change in some of the symbology in the film (and probably because the BBC have had complainants when they have blown up churches in the past).
The original had scenes that stuck with me ( I was quite young when i first saw it) and I feel that the remake doesn't have this effect, although that could just be my age now. However the remake does up the tension and it does feel that there is more riding on Quatermass' success
Apart from those points the film is good. Fans of the original will recognise it for what it is but new views won't need any knowledge of the original to watch it.
Dr Dystopian (526 KP) rated Netflix in Apps
Jan 8, 2018 (Updated Jan 8, 2018)
Wide variety of content (3 more)
Netflix original content
Replacement of services like sky
Ease of use
Price increases especially for 4k content (1 more)
Can have a lot of lower quality content at times
Best on demand service in the UK
A great app that is a perfect substitution for main stream cable or satellite services that isgreat for watching what you want when you want and is a fraction of the price without being limited to a single location.
Tonnes to choose from and plenty of Netflix original content that keeps getting better and better.
The only negatives are that there have been some price rises and that in order to have 4k services you have to take the top package which is designed for 4 concurrent users, a 2 user 4k service would have been a nice option.
Tonnes to choose from and plenty of Netflix original content that keeps getting better and better.
The only negatives are that there have been some price rises and that in order to have 4k services you have to take the top package which is designed for 4 concurrent users, a 2 user 4k service would have been a nice option.