Search
Angry Zombies 2 HD for iPad
Games
App
[to iOS 7.0 Users] = You will have to Log Out GameCenter in order to play this game at iOS 7.0 =...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021) in Movies
Dec 4, 2021
Well then, colour me surprised because I didn't absolutely hate this.
I'm a big fan of the Resident Evil games. So much so that the entirety of the original movie franchise actively annoyed me with every passing entry. This reboot makes a decent effort to stay faithful to the source material, and that alone commands some semblance of respect. The general atmosphere is very Resident Evil, many of the set pieces seem familiar, but there's just something missing. The cast boasts some great talent - Donal Logue, Hannah John-Kamen, and Neal McDonough are amongst the ranks - but all of them seem to be doing the best they can with a poor script, a script which is pretty much all the characters saying their names to eachother, and spouting exposition like there's no tomorrow. There's also the issue of the narrative content. Honestly, I'm just longing for a straight up adaption of the first game, a minimilast tense-as-hell thriller set in the original mansion. Welcome to Raccoon City sort of delivers in that respect, but also opts to cram in the plot of the second game, and even smatterings of the third. For a film that seems to be setting up a new series, that's a whole lot of content to burn through in one film. It results in a narrative that comes across as choppy. There's a little too much going on for it to flow properly. I also hated how Leon Kennedy was portrayed as a big dumb fuck. Show the man some respect! On top of this, the CGI is pretty damn atrocious throughout. The practical effects here and there look genuinely great, but there's a lot of undercooked effects work that managed to pull me out proceedings, especially in the final set piece.
Despite its shortcomings however, WTRC is a pretty entertaining video game adaption. It can be underwhelming at times, but it's aesthetic is pretty spot on, and it's so far removed from the initial film series that I can't help but kind of dig it, and I'll happily take it over any of those movies. Genuinely hoping a sequel happens.
I'm a big fan of the Resident Evil games. So much so that the entirety of the original movie franchise actively annoyed me with every passing entry. This reboot makes a decent effort to stay faithful to the source material, and that alone commands some semblance of respect. The general atmosphere is very Resident Evil, many of the set pieces seem familiar, but there's just something missing. The cast boasts some great talent - Donal Logue, Hannah John-Kamen, and Neal McDonough are amongst the ranks - but all of them seem to be doing the best they can with a poor script, a script which is pretty much all the characters saying their names to eachother, and spouting exposition like there's no tomorrow. There's also the issue of the narrative content. Honestly, I'm just longing for a straight up adaption of the first game, a minimilast tense-as-hell thriller set in the original mansion. Welcome to Raccoon City sort of delivers in that respect, but also opts to cram in the plot of the second game, and even smatterings of the third. For a film that seems to be setting up a new series, that's a whole lot of content to burn through in one film. It results in a narrative that comes across as choppy. There's a little too much going on for it to flow properly. I also hated how Leon Kennedy was portrayed as a big dumb fuck. Show the man some respect! On top of this, the CGI is pretty damn atrocious throughout. The practical effects here and there look genuinely great, but there's a lot of undercooked effects work that managed to pull me out proceedings, especially in the final set piece.
Despite its shortcomings however, WTRC is a pretty entertaining video game adaption. It can be underwhelming at times, but it's aesthetic is pretty spot on, and it's so far removed from the initial film series that I can't help but kind of dig it, and I'll happily take it over any of those movies. Genuinely hoping a sequel happens.
Zach Smith (62 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2019
Finally another view on the Transformers Universe that isnt Michael Bay.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I will give you a big heads up, I was not crazy about the idea of this movie due to Hollywood casting another female lead that is horrible unrealistic that this female that is a 10 in looks department. Michael Bay at least cast a realistic man named Shia that lets face it is no Brad Pitt. It was something normal people can relate to. Now being a gay male I found that the costar a male looked realistic and was relatable in having the crush on the 'hot' girl. No saying that they managed to sexualize it abit by showing male eye candy in boxers and the costar ripping his shirt off so I gave thaat a big thumbs up for me being the pig I am. Now moving on from the human bullshit part. The opening sequence takes place on the cybertron we all grew up to love and know. No crazy shit like the Cube is mentioned, you get an epic war scene with the majority of the original decepticons that actually look like decepticons, including soundwave and the purple guy that has one eye. I dont recall seeing megatron however, but its been awhile since I last saw it.
Anywho the movie goes on for character development for the unreal female lead which of course didnt really interest me. However there is a fierce battle between bumblebee and another decepticon and the idea of Bumblebee having a damaged voice modulator is carried over from the Michael Bay Transformers universe. Skipping forward to the introduction of the hero lead human finding bumblebee she is working on the vw beetle and she lays under the car to work on it and it looks just like when look at an transformer toy, you can see bumblebees head in the undercarriage, again freaking awesome!. So this movie made money which I am glad because I gave up on the Michael Bay transformer universe after he started slaughtering the autobots just like the Transformers Cartoon movie. So it is said we will see more from this group of writers and directors as they sort of reboot the universe and start making money again. Go see it, buy it. Snore factor of 2/10 for the stupid human parts.
Anywho the movie goes on for character development for the unreal female lead which of course didnt really interest me. However there is a fierce battle between bumblebee and another decepticon and the idea of Bumblebee having a damaged voice modulator is carried over from the Michael Bay Transformers universe. Skipping forward to the introduction of the hero lead human finding bumblebee she is working on the vw beetle and she lays under the car to work on it and it looks just like when look at an transformer toy, you can see bumblebees head in the undercarriage, again freaking awesome!. So this movie made money which I am glad because I gave up on the Michael Bay transformer universe after he started slaughtering the autobots just like the Transformers Cartoon movie. So it is said we will see more from this group of writers and directors as they sort of reboot the universe and start making money again. Go see it, buy it. Snore factor of 2/10 for the stupid human parts.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019
My entire childhood
So funny how seeing a "decked out" DeLorean in a Target parking lot the other day made me want to rewatch Back to the Future again soon. It had been on my rewatch list ever since I purchased the trilogy on Blu Ray on Black Friday, but just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018 (Updated Nov 5, 2018)
Slight variation on the Alice in Wonderland reboot
I'm guessing Disney want to keep going with their live action Princess films, and thought they'd hit gold with the rights to the Nutcracker for a Christmas release. Similar to the 2010 Alice in Wonderland, the film intends to act as a sequel to the original tale of the Nutcracker, where the world has fallen into disarray. Clara is the daughter of the original story's Marie, who has passed away, and looking to open the intriguing present left by her mother she finds herself following a mouse (not a rabbit!) into a strange world. She is introduced to the world her mother was made queen of, though sadly learns that the "fourth realm" (led by Helen Mirren as Mother Ginger) is at war with the other three (among them are realms led by Keira Knightley and an underused Richard E Grant).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jan 9, 2019 (Updated Jan 9, 2019)
Emily Blunt & Lin-Manuel Miranda (1 more)
An Incredible Animated Sequence
Practically Perfect In Every Way?
I've never been a big Mary Poppins fan, but I went to see this because my girlfriend is and we both enjoyed it. I didn't go in expecting much, but this was a charming, harmless, family friendly time and I had fun with it. I think the fact that I am not a huge fan of the original was actually a benefit going in, because I wasn't constantly comparing the film to the OG.
First off, Emily Blunt did a sublime job in the title role. I am a huge fan of hers and she nails this role. To be honest from what I can remember from seeing the original when I was young, I think I prefer her to Julie Andrew's take on the character. Regardless, I don't think that there is any other actress working today that could have done a better job than she did.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is also fantastic as the Dick Van Dyke type character and does a good job of keeping the energy up and the plot moving forward throughout the movie. The lamp lighting sequence that he lead was one of the best in the film. The rest of the cast also do a decent job, except from the vastly overrated Meryl Streep, she was excruciatingly annoying and she felt unnecessarily shoehorned into the movie for no apparent reason.
The highlight for me though, was the beautiful and dynamic animated sequence that happens within the porcelain bowl. This whole sequence was incredible and really blew me away. I found it particularly mind blowing as an animator myself. There were many times that I was left asking myself how they managed to pull off certain things and it left me extremely impressed.
Overall, this is a fun, family friendly romp that in my opinion surpasses the original. It is in some aspects a soft reboot, but there enough call-backs and homages to the OG version that it works as a sequel and will please long time fans of the first movie, but it will also hopefully entertain a whole new generation and Emily Blunt fills the big shoes left by her predecessor remarkably well.
First off, Emily Blunt did a sublime job in the title role. I am a huge fan of hers and she nails this role. To be honest from what I can remember from seeing the original when I was young, I think I prefer her to Julie Andrew's take on the character. Regardless, I don't think that there is any other actress working today that could have done a better job than she did.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is also fantastic as the Dick Van Dyke type character and does a good job of keeping the energy up and the plot moving forward throughout the movie. The lamp lighting sequence that he lead was one of the best in the film. The rest of the cast also do a decent job, except from the vastly overrated Meryl Streep, she was excruciatingly annoying and she felt unnecessarily shoehorned into the movie for no apparent reason.
The highlight for me though, was the beautiful and dynamic animated sequence that happens within the porcelain bowl. This whole sequence was incredible and really blew me away. I found it particularly mind blowing as an animator myself. There were many times that I was left asking myself how they managed to pull off certain things and it left me extremely impressed.
Overall, this is a fun, family friendly romp that in my opinion surpasses the original. It is in some aspects a soft reboot, but there enough call-backs and homages to the OG version that it works as a sequel and will please long time fans of the first movie, but it will also hopefully entertain a whole new generation and Emily Blunt fills the big shoes left by her predecessor remarkably well.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Childs Play is a strange & maybe unnecessary reboot of a cult classic series of films that are still going strong. That being said this new film does manage to hold its own as a solo slasher & throws in enough new ideas to keep things feeling fresh & fun while most importantly of all staying faithful to the original formula. Lets get one thing out the way here the doll design of chucky in this film is horrendous & down right hideous looking (not in a good way) I get they needed to change the way he looked slightly but this doll side on especially has one ugly & bulky side profile. Its not so bad when he's face on or half shadowed in darkness & there are some genuinely creepy scenes involving the glowing eyes. Mark Hamill is the perfect choice voice wise & really does bring life, comedy & creepiness to an other wise soulless character. Plot is quite basic & characters are also fairly paint by numbers too but the cast do bring the movie to life with believable acting & fun interactions with each other. Atmosphere is built up nicely especially in the first half as its tense, unnerving & slowly paced making the viewer earn its kills & scares. These a big sense of nostalgia here too & the film does over all feel like it was made in the 80s despite its squeaky clean look at times. References, nods & inspirations litter the film too & genuinely feel clever rather than like a cheap 'remember this'. Delivering on gore this instalment has some nasty death scenes & the finally is deliciously over the top. I did however much prefer the first half over the second half as I found the slower pacing way more tense & creepy especially seeing this doll gradually learn to kill with almost a sense of naivety, innocence & good intention to it. You could also argue the creation of the doll is our fault as consumers & our desire to want more/connect more. Chucky could also be metaphor for how soulless & desensitized we have become too. Childs Play doesnt need to exist at all but manages to stand on its own two feet as a ridiculous, creepy, devilishly funny & extremely entertaining just dont expect anything ground breaking or intelligent & you will be sure to have a blast Buddi.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated A Blade So Black in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><strong>When I first heard of <em>A Blade So Black</em>, I got excited.</strong></h2>
And I mean super excited! Here we have a book that features a black protagonist (we need more POC retellings!) who kicks butt like Buffy the vampire slayer and a retelling of <em>Alice in Wonderland</em> (which I should I get to one day but probably won't happen).
<h2><strong>But L.L. McKinney's debut novel turned out to be a big bummer.</strong></h2>
I didn't hate it, but I very much could not get past 40% of the book - in fact, I suffered more than I should because I <em>hoped</em> the book would get a lot better later. But it didn't get any better.
<h3>The writing style didn't suit me.</h3>
I think this is another "it's not you, it's me," but omg the writing made me want to sleep more than continuing the book. I found watching the 2018 reboot of "Meteor Garden" more interesting and probably watched an episode or two for every chapter that bored me to tears.
<h3>The concept is amazing.</h3>
Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets in Alice in Wonderland in a modern day setting? Hellooooo, please sign me up. This book spells dark and ominous and I definitely got that vibe while reading what I did.
<h3>But it was just <em>sooo</em> boring.</h3>
I checked out of the book by Chapter Four (but I <em>tried</em> to stay with the rest of the book, I swear!). Wonderland is full of action, but it was the same thing over and over again and got repetitive. Alice is juggling being a Dreamwalker, who can destroy the Nightmares that come from Wonderland, while being an ordinary student with a life, but it was all the same thing over and over again. It never really picked up.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/a-blade-so-black-by-l-l-mckinney-the-disappointment-is-so-real/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>When I first heard of <em>A Blade So Black</em>, I got excited.</strong></h2>
And I mean super excited! Here we have a book that features a black protagonist (we need more POC retellings!) who kicks butt like Buffy the vampire slayer and a retelling of <em>Alice in Wonderland</em> (which I should I get to one day but probably won't happen).
<h2><strong>But L.L. McKinney's debut novel turned out to be a big bummer.</strong></h2>
I didn't hate it, but I very much could not get past 40% of the book - in fact, I suffered more than I should because I <em>hoped</em> the book would get a lot better later. But it didn't get any better.
<h3>The writing style didn't suit me.</h3>
I think this is another "it's not you, it's me," but omg the writing made me want to sleep more than continuing the book. I found watching the 2018 reboot of "Meteor Garden" more interesting and probably watched an episode or two for every chapter that bored me to tears.
<h3>The concept is amazing.</h3>
Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets in Alice in Wonderland in a modern day setting? Hellooooo, please sign me up. This book spells dark and ominous and I definitely got that vibe while reading what I did.
<h3>But it was just <em>sooo</em> boring.</h3>
I checked out of the book by Chapter Four (but I <em>tried</em> to stay with the rest of the book, I swear!). Wonderland is full of action, but it was the same thing over and over again and got repetitive. Alice is juggling being a Dreamwalker, who can destroy the Nightmares that come from Wonderland, while being an ordinary student with a life, but it was all the same thing over and over again. It never really picked up.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/a-blade-so-black-by-l-l-mckinney-the-disappointment-is-so-real/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 15, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
If it ain't broke
The second chapter of the extremely popular reboot of Stephen King's It is more of the same...and that's a good thing.
The first film feels like a ghost train, with creepy imagery, and well crafted jump scares that don't feel too cheap.
Chapter Two takes the same formula, and if anything, actually does more with it. Pennywise seams more brutal and unforgiving in his ways this time around.
Bill Skarsgård once again is great as Pennywise, sinister, whilst remaining weirdly charming, and sometimes sympathetic.
The fantastic child actors from the first film are present once again via flashbacks, and are just as likable, but as the bulk of Chapter Two is set 27 years later, these characters are now grown up and played by a whole host of incredibly well casted adults.
Bill Hader in particular is a highlight throughout. I always have time for James McAvoy as well, the guy is an hugely underrated actor.
The scares arrive thick and fast after a slow start where we're reintroduced to everyone - and they are mixed...some are genuinely unsettling (as is the tone for a lot of Chapter Two). The Paul Bunyun statue is a memorable moment, as is the creepy old lady scene from the trailers.
Some others are more tame, and some occasionally cartoony CGI take away from the scares themselves.
The climax of the film is pretty fun, as The Losers once again prepare to battle Pennywise, and it's once again, a truly memorable sequence.
The overall ending suffers slightly from Return of the King syndrome, and feels unessecarily drawn out at the end of an already lengthy film.
Another thing that didn't quite sit well with me was the opening scene - I understand that said scene is in the original novel, and it's a way of reintroducing us to Pennywise, but it felt out of place. Homophobia is still a huge issue in 2019, and there is nothing wrong with shouting about it. But the scene is cruel, and ultimately has no connection to the larger narrative.
Nevertheless, it's a very chilling and effective opening to the film.
The duo of new It films is modern horror done pretty well - unnerving and at times scary, whilst still being accessible to a wider audience.
Certainly worth watching them!
The first film feels like a ghost train, with creepy imagery, and well crafted jump scares that don't feel too cheap.
Chapter Two takes the same formula, and if anything, actually does more with it. Pennywise seams more brutal and unforgiving in his ways this time around.
Bill Skarsgård once again is great as Pennywise, sinister, whilst remaining weirdly charming, and sometimes sympathetic.
The fantastic child actors from the first film are present once again via flashbacks, and are just as likable, but as the bulk of Chapter Two is set 27 years later, these characters are now grown up and played by a whole host of incredibly well casted adults.
Bill Hader in particular is a highlight throughout. I always have time for James McAvoy as well, the guy is an hugely underrated actor.
The scares arrive thick and fast after a slow start where we're reintroduced to everyone - and they are mixed...some are genuinely unsettling (as is the tone for a lot of Chapter Two). The Paul Bunyun statue is a memorable moment, as is the creepy old lady scene from the trailers.
Some others are more tame, and some occasionally cartoony CGI take away from the scares themselves.
The climax of the film is pretty fun, as The Losers once again prepare to battle Pennywise, and it's once again, a truly memorable sequence.
The overall ending suffers slightly from Return of the King syndrome, and feels unessecarily drawn out at the end of an already lengthy film.
Another thing that didn't quite sit well with me was the opening scene - I understand that said scene is in the original novel, and it's a way of reintroducing us to Pennywise, but it felt out of place. Homophobia is still a huge issue in 2019, and there is nothing wrong with shouting about it. But the scene is cruel, and ultimately has no connection to the larger narrative.
Nevertheless, it's a very chilling and effective opening to the film.
The duo of new It films is modern horror done pretty well - unnerving and at times scary, whilst still being accessible to a wider audience.
Certainly worth watching them!
Full Circle: From Hollywood to Real Life and Back Again
5.0
Rate It
Book
She grew up in front of the world on the beloved sitcom Full House, but then actress Andrea Barber...
memoir autobiography Full House Fuller House