Search
Beneath the Attic
7.0
Rate It
Book
Two generations before Corinne Foxworth locked her children in an attic, her grandmother, a gorgeous...
Prequel Fiction Dollanganger Flowers in the Attic
Opposition (Lux, #5)
8.4
Rate It
Book
From Jennifer L. Armentrout, author of the Covenant series, comes the stunning, hotly-anticipated...
Shadowhunters and Downworlders: A Mortal Instruments Reader
Cassandra Clare, Rachel Caine, Holly Black, Sarah Rees Brennan, Robin Wasserman, Kendare Blake, Michelle Hodkin, Sara Ryan, Kami Garcia, Sarah Cross, Kelly Link, Gwenda Bond, Kate Milford, Diana Peterfreund and Scott Tracey
8.5
Rate It
Book
Cassandra Clare’s Mortal Instruments series, epic urban fantasy set in a richly imagined world of...
Forever And A Day
7.8
Rate It
Book
A spy is dead. A legend is born. This is how it all began. The explosive prequel to Casino Royale,...
Mothergamer (1583 KP) rated Chapelwaite in TV
Sep 30, 2021
It's not a bad show, but it definitely could be better. It's based on the short story by Stephen King from his Night Shift anthology setting up a prequel to Salem's Lot. The premise is good, but the execution is lacking. It's meant to be a horror show, but sometimes it feels very dull with one or two jump scares. It takes far too long to get to the point and reveal with what is going on in the town and with Charles and his family. The cast is uneven too. Adrien Brody does a great job and some of the other cast are great too, but then you have some of the cast that don't deliver lines well, in a stilted robotic manner. If you're going to do a horror show, then do a horror show that is actually scary rather than boring and hardly any horror.
David McK (3600 KP) rated Star Wars: Andor in TV
Mar 16, 2023
Very marmite experience
I was one of those who couldn't quite see the point of an Andor prequel series: unlike Vader, say, or Obi-Wan, there was nothing in particular about the character that screamed out to me 'See more!'.
As a result, I never watched this as it was released on a weekly basis: indeed, I only got round to it for completeness sake just before the new series of the (much better, IMO) The Mandalorian started.
I also kept hearing how the critics seemed to love it, but didn't know a single person who had actually made it the whole way through the series.
Now, having watched it, I do have to say I found it a very marmite-like experience: some good episodes (and scenes), but far too drawn out for its own good!
And, yes, I miss the Force powers and lightsabres.
As a result, I never watched this as it was released on a weekly basis: indeed, I only got round to it for completeness sake just before the new series of the (much better, IMO) The Mandalorian started.
I also kept hearing how the critics seemed to love it, but didn't know a single person who had actually made it the whole way through the series.
Now, having watched it, I do have to say I found it a very marmite-like experience: some good episodes (and scenes), but far too drawn out for its own good!
And, yes, I miss the Force powers and lightsabres.
David McK (3600 KP) rated The hunger games ballard of songbirds and snakes (2023) in Movies
Jul 3, 2024
I've read the original Hunger Games trilogy.
I'd seen the quartet of movies based on those books.
I haven't read the prequel, on which this is based.
So I had little knowledge of what to expect, going in, other than that it centred on a young Cornelius Snow before he becomes the tyrannical president of the original films.
This film is very clearly split into 3 acts (each proceeded by a card naming such): The Mentor, The Prize and The Peacekeeper - with the first two of those three acts the better.
Final act drags on a bit.
The middle section is the bit set during the 10th annual Hunger Games, which - here - are far more 'basic', far more 'real' than that of the Jennifer Lawrence films, with Rachel Zeigler's Lucy Gray also more a performer forced to become a warrior than Lawrence's Everdeen (the exact opposite).
I'd seen the quartet of movies based on those books.
I haven't read the prequel, on which this is based.
So I had little knowledge of what to expect, going in, other than that it centred on a young Cornelius Snow before he becomes the tyrannical president of the original films.
This film is very clearly split into 3 acts (each proceeded by a card naming such): The Mentor, The Prize and The Peacekeeper - with the first two of those three acts the better.
Final act drags on a bit.
The middle section is the bit set during the 10th annual Hunger Games, which - here - are far more 'basic', far more 'real' than that of the Jennifer Lawrence films, with Rachel Zeigler's Lucy Gray also more a performer forced to become a warrior than Lawrence's Everdeen (the exact opposite).
Darren (1599 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter (2000) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on From Dusk till Dawn 3: The Hangman’s Daughter
Characters – Johnny Madrid is one of the most feared outlaws in the west, about to be executed, he is rescued and returns to his gang to continue his life of crime, he will kill some people, while protecting others, making him a morally confusing figure. Ambrose Bierce has come from America where he has survived a shooting, he wants peaceful life only to find himself in the middle of the battle. The Hangman is trying to eliminate the threats in the gang world including Johnny, mostly to protect his daughter, only it isn’t for him to choose. Esmeralda is his daughter that has been getting controlled for too long and is in love with Johnny, she goes on the run with him only to be left questioning his choices.
Performances – The performances here are poor once again, Marco Leonardi overplays is role in the film, while Michael Parks does the best he can with his role. We do end up meeting too many random characters that just seems to make everything struggle to get going in the performance side of the film.
Story – The story does return to the original format only in the western era, we have the outlaws, the victims and the authorities all ending up in the bar which is crawling with vampires and must put their difference aside to survive. This style did work first time, it doesn’t fail this time, but it is hard to become invested in the characters. the build up before the bar is a lot of filler because we do have a lot of people to learn their place and mentality which makes it hard to figure out who is the good and bad guys for the piece. We try to have a connection to the original movie with the creation of one of the vampires which better than the last time out too.
Horror/Western – The horror involved in the film is returning to the vampire outlet which again doesn’t feel scary as it could have been. The western side of the film just uses the criminal side of the last one only making it a prequel to the original.
Settings – The film is set in the western area, we do eventually hit the saloon made famous from the first film and this time we get to dive into the larger scale of the building.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are not at the best, we do get a couple of good moments only nothing that reaches the levels of the first film.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – To many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough prequel, at least it does feel connected to the previous film which helps build on the legacy of the bar.
Overall: Simple prequel.
Characters – Johnny Madrid is one of the most feared outlaws in the west, about to be executed, he is rescued and returns to his gang to continue his life of crime, he will kill some people, while protecting others, making him a morally confusing figure. Ambrose Bierce has come from America where he has survived a shooting, he wants peaceful life only to find himself in the middle of the battle. The Hangman is trying to eliminate the threats in the gang world including Johnny, mostly to protect his daughter, only it isn’t for him to choose. Esmeralda is his daughter that has been getting controlled for too long and is in love with Johnny, she goes on the run with him only to be left questioning his choices.
Performances – The performances here are poor once again, Marco Leonardi overplays is role in the film, while Michael Parks does the best he can with his role. We do end up meeting too many random characters that just seems to make everything struggle to get going in the performance side of the film.
Story – The story does return to the original format only in the western era, we have the outlaws, the victims and the authorities all ending up in the bar which is crawling with vampires and must put their difference aside to survive. This style did work first time, it doesn’t fail this time, but it is hard to become invested in the characters. the build up before the bar is a lot of filler because we do have a lot of people to learn their place and mentality which makes it hard to figure out who is the good and bad guys for the piece. We try to have a connection to the original movie with the creation of one of the vampires which better than the last time out too.
Horror/Western – The horror involved in the film is returning to the vampire outlet which again doesn’t feel scary as it could have been. The western side of the film just uses the criminal side of the last one only making it a prequel to the original.
Settings – The film is set in the western area, we do eventually hit the saloon made famous from the first film and this time we get to dive into the larger scale of the building.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are not at the best, we do get a couple of good moments only nothing that reaches the levels of the first film.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – To many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough prequel, at least it does feel connected to the previous film which helps build on the legacy of the bar.
Overall: Simple prequel.
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015) in Movies
Sep 7, 2018
A good antagonist for this one (1 more)
An interesting approach to character helplessness
Overall drop in quality of the cast and camerawork is noticable. (1 more)
Lacks some of the character of the first 2 movies
Whannell Takes the wheel...
So the third instalment sees co-writer Leigh Whannell take the wheel of this fledgling franchise, probably since James Wan is one of the busiest men in hollywood.
Whilst the familar faces of the first two movies are missing in this prequel, the mystic (Elise) returns as the point of familiarity, and one suspects the popularity of her character has led to this prequel.
The casting of the movie is interesting, with a generally weaker cast despite a bigger budget...the main protagonist does a decent job of essentially being a teenage scream queen, being pursued by a breathing-masked ghost/entity with mucky feet that torments her after she has her legs broken in a car accident.
Her claustrophobic situation, being essentially bed-bound, leads to a number of uncomfortable scenes, with the very creepy 'man who can't breath', as well as a hand, foot and faceless woman at one point.
The pacing of this film seems a little faster, getting to the ghostly scenes much quicker, and perhaps a little impatient to get to the moneymaking shots, some of which felt a little tacked on as 'additional scares' without any context, but they are mostly fun so I can let them slide.
The film answers a few questions about Elise, and how she meets the two goons that follow her around during the other films, as well as showing her talking with the other psychic from Insidious 2, and they are constantly making references to the family from the earlier movies, but most of this is pretty incidental to the core of the actual film itself.
All in all its a solid if unspectacular sequel, with some great moments, some clunky exposition and throwbacks, and some questions answered that you never knew needed answering!
Whilst the familar faces of the first two movies are missing in this prequel, the mystic (Elise) returns as the point of familiarity, and one suspects the popularity of her character has led to this prequel.
The casting of the movie is interesting, with a generally weaker cast despite a bigger budget...the main protagonist does a decent job of essentially being a teenage scream queen, being pursued by a breathing-masked ghost/entity with mucky feet that torments her after she has her legs broken in a car accident.
Her claustrophobic situation, being essentially bed-bound, leads to a number of uncomfortable scenes, with the very creepy 'man who can't breath', as well as a hand, foot and faceless woman at one point.
The pacing of this film seems a little faster, getting to the ghostly scenes much quicker, and perhaps a little impatient to get to the moneymaking shots, some of which felt a little tacked on as 'additional scares' without any context, but they are mostly fun so I can let them slide.
The film answers a few questions about Elise, and how she meets the two goons that follow her around during the other films, as well as showing her talking with the other psychic from Insidious 2, and they are constantly making references to the family from the earlier movies, but most of this is pretty incidental to the core of the actual film itself.
All in all its a solid if unspectacular sequel, with some great moments, some clunky exposition and throwbacks, and some questions answered that you never knew needed answering!
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
Oct 25, 2020
This damn doll just isn't scary, people - and neither is this movie, not a single time. However, for about half the time it does succeed at being effectively creepy and sometimes even sort of fun. I mean this is still just the same two or three rusty clichés and dated, predictable jumpscares on repeat but it has a lot of half-okay vignettes... which all get soured by the surfeit of nonsensical connections to other movies in the series and the insufferable "Hey, remember when THIS happened??" bullcrap. For one I wish they'd let David F. Sandberg be David F. Sandberg here instead of yet another inferior Wan clone like they do with the rest of these. And for two I'm not the first to suggest that this movie being more concerned with milking the Conjuring mythos dry of any miniscule amount of nuance it once had through attempting to spin it thin into some sort of pointless, scuffed 'cinematic universe' kills the standalone decent horror flick this could have been (as well as devalues the originals in the process) - and I hopefully won't be the last - but Jesus Christ did it have to be so fucking long too? When this script was written, did every sentence have to include at least three sets of ellipses between words? Also the non-horror stuff is worlds better than the horror stuff - personally I would have loved to have seen the movie that was pushed to the side in here about this group of orphans finding out something isn't right with Anthony LaPaglia and Miranda Otto or the secretive demonic stuff they've been cooking up in the background after their daughter gets killed. But no, it rushes past all the intriguing stuff in favor of a competent but saccharine and generic cash grab. Far from awful but also not all that much better than the original 𝘈𝘯𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦. Did we really need a prequel... to a prequel (which in and of itself we didn't need)?