Search
Search results
Scream (2022)
6.1
Rate It
Movie Watch
Twenty-five years after the original series of murders in Woodsboro, a new killer emerges, and...
Dean (6926 KP) rated Black Site (2022) in Movies
Sep 18, 2022
Nice set design (1 more)
Good Cast
Very poor plot (1 more)
Terrible Cgi scenes
One for the Black list
The most recent Sky Original film set at a Black Site facility. Despite a talented cast the plot and story are quite simple. Rather slow and boring to get going for a short film. Almost more Slasher film than action once a character goes on the rampage. The apparent twist was obvious from the start. One to miss.
David McK (3414 KP) rated Tales of the Jedi in TV
Nov 20, 2022 (Updated Nov 20, 2022)
Disney's latest (at the time of writing) entry in the Star Wars canon, this is a series of shorts - all about 15, 20 minutes long or so - that primarily follows two Jedi in particular (Dooku and Ahsoka), and so are all set prior to the events of the original trilogy.
Some of the animation is stunning, yes, but it's also the case that some of the shorts are better than others.
Some of the animation is stunning, yes, but it's also the case that some of the shorts are better than others.
MasterSolace (19 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
The Music(it's Disney) (4 more)
The Special Effects(it's Disney)
The Atmosphere
The Cast & Characters
One last bit... in the review
Live-Action Magic
Contains spoilers, click to show
Disney has been on a kick of redoing their animated masterpieces into live action masterpieces. It worked with Cinderella... Jungle Book was flawed, but still wild... and Beauty and the Beast was simply Beautiful. So... was this reimagining of Aladdin up to par...
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Mar 4, 2019
Great tension throughout (2 more)
John Carpenter returns for the music
Jamie lee curtis is back
The best halloween movie?
I loved this movie. There was so much tension all the way through and i enjoyed every second. A lot of that is down to the amazing but eerie score in which we see John Carpenter return for.
Another return is Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode who is great as usual. The whole cast does a good job. With a couple of familiar faces.
This is a direct sequel to original movie. In some ways i like that. It retcons some stupid stuff where they turned Michael Myers into a supernatural entity. But in other ways it means Halloween H20 is pointless and nor canon which i actually enjoyed. It wasnt as scary but it was entertaining.
This movie goes back to scary Michael. He is brutal and for some someone who does not say a single word, speaks volumes with just his presence and proves to be a real threat to anyone he comes into contact with. We even see the original Myers actor, Nick Castle, see a return for a cameo in a window shot which was a nice touch.
Its easily 1 of the creepiest horrors ive seen in a while and 1 of the greats of 2018 and would happily watch again. From what i hear, development is already going for a sequel with a story already written and i am excited. I just hope they can keep that tension.
Another return is Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode who is great as usual. The whole cast does a good job. With a couple of familiar faces.
This is a direct sequel to original movie. In some ways i like that. It retcons some stupid stuff where they turned Michael Myers into a supernatural entity. But in other ways it means Halloween H20 is pointless and nor canon which i actually enjoyed. It wasnt as scary but it was entertaining.
This movie goes back to scary Michael. He is brutal and for some someone who does not say a single word, speaks volumes with just his presence and proves to be a real threat to anyone he comes into contact with. We even see the original Myers actor, Nick Castle, see a return for a cameo in a window shot which was a nice touch.
Its easily 1 of the creepiest horrors ive seen in a while and 1 of the greats of 2018 and would happily watch again. From what i hear, development is already going for a sequel with a story already written and i am excited. I just hope they can keep that tension.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
Plodding...
I had heard and seen all the mediocre reviews for this, but I still wanted to give it a try for myself with my wife last night.
Basically Mary Poppins returns to the Banks household for additional assistance. The original children are grown up and now have problems of their own including unruly children and the bank trying to foreclose and repossess their house. What are they to do?
The film had some fun musical numbers like when Mary send the kids to go take a bath; however, none of the musical numbers hold a candle to the original.
It honestly felt the entire film they were trying too hard to be too close to the original story in almost every way without much variation or surprises at all. I know others had mentioned the Meryl Streep scene as being unnecessary and I completely agree. Her character brought nothing to the story and the entire film could've been like 20 - 30 minutes shorter. The middle and 3rd act dragged on incessantly and was a lot darker like the sequence where all the guys are climbing the clock near the end.
I love Emily Blunt as well, but she really seemed like she was trying to do her Julie Andrews impression instead of making the character her own. Maybe that is asking too much.
The movie had some fun cameos which were a delight, but overall not enough to save this somewhat dull and unnecessary film.
Basically Mary Poppins returns to the Banks household for additional assistance. The original children are grown up and now have problems of their own including unruly children and the bank trying to foreclose and repossess their house. What are they to do?
The film had some fun musical numbers like when Mary send the kids to go take a bath; however, none of the musical numbers hold a candle to the original.
It honestly felt the entire film they were trying too hard to be too close to the original story in almost every way without much variation or surprises at all. I know others had mentioned the Meryl Streep scene as being unnecessary and I completely agree. Her character brought nothing to the story and the entire film could've been like 20 - 30 minutes shorter. The middle and 3rd act dragged on incessantly and was a lot darker like the sequence where all the guys are climbing the clock near the end.
I love Emily Blunt as well, but she really seemed like she was trying to do her Julie Andrews impression instead of making the character her own. Maybe that is asking too much.
The movie had some fun cameos which were a delight, but overall not enough to save this somewhat dull and unnecessary film.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Jun 8, 2018
A Bad Reboot Production
Relaunch of the Trek movie franchise ties itself up horrendous knots trying to be all things to all Trekkies: they want to give a free hand to their shiny new creative team, so they don't want to be beholden to the original continuity - on the other hand, they don't want to upset the fans, so they feel obliged to kind-of keep the continuity anyway. In the end they decide to respect and honour the original universe by apparently obliterating it, which is a curious approach to take (this is how time travel always worked in Trek, as anyone familiar enough with the series to be scripting a movie based on it should have known).
The film is so busy being wholly-faithful-yet-provocatively-new that there isn't a great deal of space for plot, beyond the original characters getting back together again for the first time. The recasting is reasonably effective, but as most of them are playing somewhat different versions of the characters it's hard to be completely sure. Production values are good, but it's a $150 million movie from a major studio, so this is hardly a surprise. I did quite enjoy this movie the first time I saw it, but that was in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, dubbed into Russian. Once someone had explained the plot to me I felt somewhat differently about it - this is one of those rare films I dislike more each time I see it. Ultimately a pointless and quite patronising movie.
The film is so busy being wholly-faithful-yet-provocatively-new that there isn't a great deal of space for plot, beyond the original characters getting back together again for the first time. The recasting is reasonably effective, but as most of them are playing somewhat different versions of the characters it's hard to be completely sure. Production values are good, but it's a $150 million movie from a major studio, so this is hardly a surprise. I did quite enjoy this movie the first time I saw it, but that was in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, dubbed into Russian. Once someone had explained the plot to me I felt somewhat differently about it - this is one of those rare films I dislike more each time I see it. Ultimately a pointless and quite patronising movie.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Northanger Abbey (The Austen Project, #2) in Books
Dec 21, 2018
The idea of The Austen Project is for six modern day authors to have a go do writing a modern day re-imagining of each of Jane Austen's major works. The first was Joanna Trollope's version of Sense & Sensibility, where the reviews seem to have been fairly lukewarm. This is the second offering, Northanger Abbey as re-imagined by Val McDermid.
Now, I've not read of of McDermid's works before, although I did think she was pretty smart when she won on Celebrity Mastermind. After reading this, I remain impressed. The novel tracks the original very closely and it's quite clever in how it does this. It is hard to imagine someone quite as naive as Catherine Morland in this day and age, but McDermind's 'Cat' Morland does pretty well. It's a very slangy novel ("amazeballs!"), sprinkled with 'txt spk', but then the original is quite slangy - especially the parts with Isabella Thorpe! I do think that to appreciate it you have to know the original quite well and have a passing knowledge of current popular culture. Catherine believing the General Tilney has murdered his wife or has locked her up somewhere is slightly fantastic, but rather more grounded than Cat's idea that the family may be Vampires.....! Still, if you can suspend your disbelief this is a fun and engaging read - in fact, a very 'nice' book... and with a very 'nice' hero. And I'm pretty sure this Henry Tilney would spell out all his texts properly - no want of grammar and total inattention to stops here!
Now, I've not read of of McDermid's works before, although I did think she was pretty smart when she won on Celebrity Mastermind. After reading this, I remain impressed. The novel tracks the original very closely and it's quite clever in how it does this. It is hard to imagine someone quite as naive as Catherine Morland in this day and age, but McDermind's 'Cat' Morland does pretty well. It's a very slangy novel ("amazeballs!"), sprinkled with 'txt spk', but then the original is quite slangy - especially the parts with Isabella Thorpe! I do think that to appreciate it you have to know the original quite well and have a passing knowledge of current popular culture. Catherine believing the General Tilney has murdered his wife or has locked her up somewhere is slightly fantastic, but rather more grounded than Cat's idea that the family may be Vampires.....! Still, if you can suspend your disbelief this is a fun and engaging read - in fact, a very 'nice' book... and with a very 'nice' hero. And I'm pretty sure this Henry Tilney would spell out all his texts properly - no want of grammar and total inattention to stops here!