Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2022
Jason Clarke (2 more)
John lithgow
Jete Laurence
Watched last night as I’ve read the Stephen king novel and watched the original film so going into the remake will it be any good it’s okay not as good as the original there are some changes in this version from the original the main being the daughter being brought from the dead and not the son.and there’s John lithgow who usually plays crazy characters actually plays a normal character which is a change for him but for me definitely star in the has to be jete Laurence who plays the daughter and plays both versions of her character brilliant overall okay film still prefer the original
Slumber Party Massacre (2021)
6.0
Rate It
Movie
Based on the 1982 original, this remake follows Dana and a group of her friends as they go on a trip...
Partner Remuneration in Law Firms: A Guide to Reward Structures, Performance Management and Decision-Making
Book
Law firms are constantly looking to improve the effectiveness of their partner remuneration systems...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Cabin Fever (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in 2002, a fairly unknown filmmaker named Eli Roth brought a fresh and creepy horror film to theaters called “Cabin Fever”. It followed a time honored setup of a group of young people taking some time off in an isolated rural setting but instead of the worn to death psycho or monster on the loose setup, this film had something new in mind.
The film followed the outbreak of a flesh eating virus that was relentless, turned characters against one another, and had audiences wondering what would happen next. Filmed for a modest budget, the film became a hit and eventually spawned two direct to video follow ups, the most recent serving as a prequel to the original film.
There were plans to make a third follow up which was reportedly to be set on a cruise ship but they were scrapped in favor of a reboot of the main film with Roth serving as producer.
The 2016 version of the film is pretty much a scene for scene and in some cases; shot for shot remake of the original that duplicates the characters, situations, and outcomes from the first film with only a few changes along the way such as a deputy being female this time around, an addition to the ending, and some slightly better production values.
While it was entertaining to watch, I found that knowing what was to come stopped any tension in the film as has barely been 14 years since the first film came out, and without anything drastically different this time around, it made me wonder why the decision to reboot the film was made.
I do believe that there is still more to tell in this series, but that there is a better way to do it than the sequels we have had to date and a shot by shot remake. I think a story that ran parallel to the original or a more direct sequel might be very interesting as well as a look at the larger consequences of the outbreak.
That being said, if you are a fan of the series you will likely want to see the remake, but will likely wish that the series had continued forward with the story rather than going back to the beginning.
http://sknr.net/2016/02/20/cabin-fever-2016/
The film followed the outbreak of a flesh eating virus that was relentless, turned characters against one another, and had audiences wondering what would happen next. Filmed for a modest budget, the film became a hit and eventually spawned two direct to video follow ups, the most recent serving as a prequel to the original film.
There were plans to make a third follow up which was reportedly to be set on a cruise ship but they were scrapped in favor of a reboot of the main film with Roth serving as producer.
The 2016 version of the film is pretty much a scene for scene and in some cases; shot for shot remake of the original that duplicates the characters, situations, and outcomes from the first film with only a few changes along the way such as a deputy being female this time around, an addition to the ending, and some slightly better production values.
While it was entertaining to watch, I found that knowing what was to come stopped any tension in the film as has barely been 14 years since the first film came out, and without anything drastically different this time around, it made me wonder why the decision to reboot the film was made.
I do believe that there is still more to tell in this series, but that there is a better way to do it than the sequels we have had to date and a shot by shot remake. I think a story that ran parallel to the original or a more direct sequel might be very interesting as well as a look at the larger consequences of the outbreak.
That being said, if you are a fan of the series you will likely want to see the remake, but will likely wish that the series had continued forward with the story rather than going back to the beginning.
http://sknr.net/2016/02/20/cabin-fever-2016/
MinEden10 (1 KP) rated Spyro Trilogy Reignited in Video Games
Feb 9, 2020
The visuals are beautiful (2 more)
The soundtrack is great
Truly faithful to the originals
Nostalgia at its Finest
I love spyro. I have loved spyro since I was old enough to be able to play the first game. When I heard it was getting a remaster, I probably made actual sounds of joy. And I'm really pleased that the remake does remain faithful to the original in a way that is fun to play and plucks all the good nostalgia heart strings. The short version of the review is to go and get the game, especially if you've played the originals.
However, there's a few niggles I have. Hunter's new voice is irritating and not how i think of the character at all. Sometimes the camera has an absolute mind if it's own and refuses to remain to behave in a way that makes any sense and...
The glitches.
They're especially prevalent in Spyro 3 and within that, the skateboard races. The final race against the yetis took me upwards of an hour to beat simply because of how glitchy and broken so many of the mechanics that it needed to function were incredibly broken. Several of the trophies were also so persistently not triggering that at one point I had to put the controller down and walk away.
And I hate that they've tainted the game enough that i don't want to replay the third one again.
But yes, all in all, I love spyro, I love the games and I enjoyed my time with the remake.
However, there's a few niggles I have. Hunter's new voice is irritating and not how i think of the character at all. Sometimes the camera has an absolute mind if it's own and refuses to remain to behave in a way that makes any sense and...
The glitches.
They're especially prevalent in Spyro 3 and within that, the skateboard races. The final race against the yetis took me upwards of an hour to beat simply because of how glitchy and broken so many of the mechanics that it needed to function were incredibly broken. Several of the trophies were also so persistently not triggering that at one point I had to put the controller down and walk away.
And I hate that they've tainted the game enough that i don't want to replay the third one again.
But yes, all in all, I love spyro, I love the games and I enjoyed my time with the remake.
Given the calibre of talent on show here you’d be forgiven for thinking that this film might have been a little more popular.
Most of them play second fiddle to Vince (Riley) who finds himself in a spot of bother when he takes the place of someone in an organised game of Russian roulette were people gamble on the outcome.
Along for the ride in this barrel spinning thriller is Ray Winstone and Mickey Rourke who themselves are part of the circle of men putting their lives on the line for a potential big payout.
Michael Shannon is cast as the adjudicator making sure that everyone follows the rules and has the right amount of bullets in the chamber, he’s hardly pushing his acting talents to any great length. Statham avoids kicking anyone’s head in for an entire film as the brother of Winestone’s character, Ronald.
The film in fact is a remake of Babluani’s original 13 Tzameti, in which his son plays the lead role, that film faired a lot better with critics. Obviously that meant Babluani remaking the film and testing it out on the English speaking audience, getting a few house hold names to try and sell it.
Aside from the Russian roulette scenes the film generally falls flat, the ending is awful and there is no real pay off, you could almost see what was going to happen mile off.
I think directors should start sticking to the originals only and avoid the Hollywood remake for the sake of having their reputation tarnished in anyway.
Most of them play second fiddle to Vince (Riley) who finds himself in a spot of bother when he takes the place of someone in an organised game of Russian roulette were people gamble on the outcome.
Along for the ride in this barrel spinning thriller is Ray Winstone and Mickey Rourke who themselves are part of the circle of men putting their lives on the line for a potential big payout.
Michael Shannon is cast as the adjudicator making sure that everyone follows the rules and has the right amount of bullets in the chamber, he’s hardly pushing his acting talents to any great length. Statham avoids kicking anyone’s head in for an entire film as the brother of Winestone’s character, Ronald.
The film in fact is a remake of Babluani’s original 13 Tzameti, in which his son plays the lead role, that film faired a lot better with critics. Obviously that meant Babluani remaking the film and testing it out on the English speaking audience, getting a few house hold names to try and sell it.
Aside from the Russian roulette scenes the film generally falls flat, the ending is awful and there is no real pay off, you could almost see what was going to happen mile off.
I think directors should start sticking to the originals only and avoid the Hollywood remake for the sake of having their reputation tarnished in anyway.
Dean (6927 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Nov 9, 2017
All star cast (1 more)
Picturesque views
Pretty remake but lacking charm
I'm a bit Agatha Christie fan and love a Whodunit. I've seen the original Albert Finney version a few times and the David Suchet made for TV one. This is behind both of those. Although it has a great cast and some nice scenery it lacks any charm, suspense or tension. Maybe because I know the story so well but the flash backs, clues and final summing up weren't as good as the other versions. Might be more fun for those who haven't seen the other versions. I wasn't keen on Branagh's portrayal of Poirot either... But it's still a good story.
Nickg24 (492 KP) rated Train to Busan (2016) in Movies
May 19, 2019
All on board for a train full of Zombies
Wow! What a film!.A zombie film that actually delivers thrilling action scenes..characters you can care about and doesn't rely on CGI special effects.
The story is simple with an outbreak of a virus that infects people and turns them into raging zombies.The main character is on the aforementioned train taking his daughter to her mother for her birthday when all hell starts breaking loose.
I dare anyone not to get a lump in their throat when it comes to the ending.
An awesome movie that deserves to be seen by all before the inevitable piss poor american remake comes along.
The story is simple with an outbreak of a virus that infects people and turns them into raging zombies.The main character is on the aforementioned train taking his daughter to her mother for her birthday when all hell starts breaking loose.
I dare anyone not to get a lump in their throat when it comes to the ending.
An awesome movie that deserves to be seen by all before the inevitable piss poor american remake comes along.
