Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Death Wish (2018) in Movies
Mar 13, 2018
Bruce Willis killing bad guys
5 minutes before DEATH WISH started there was just 2 of us in the movie theater (by the time the film started, there was probably around 20). I turned to the only gentleman sitting there (about 2 seats down) and asked him if he'd like break into a "discussion group" after the film. "I'm just here to see Bruce Willis kill bad guys.", he said.
He did not walk away disappointed.
Directed by Eli Roth, DEATH WISH is a remake of the early 1970's film starring Charles Bronson about a "normal, family man" who snaps after his wife and daughter are assaulted. The Police' hands are tied, so he decides to take matters in his own hands and starts committing "vigilante justice".
Bruce Willis stars in this remake - and he is perfectly fine as the Doctor turned vigilante. Joining him is Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Elisabth Shue as his wife and BREAKING BAD'S Dean Norris as the cop who is chasing him. All of these actors do a perfectly fine job with what they are given to work with, but (let's be honest), fine acting - or intricate plot developments - are not what you are looking for in this film.
As my new friend put it - "I'm just here to see Bruce Willis kill bad guys".
And "kill bad guys" he does. But...not as often as I though he would. And...not nearly as graphically as I was expecting. Director Roth is known as a Director of Horror "splatter" films, "torture porn" fare like the HOSTEL films and CABIN FEVER. I was pleasantly surprised by the restraint that Roth has shown in the graphic violence in this film - I was expecting it to be a lot worse, almost stomach churning - but it just wasn't (except for 1 torture seen involving a car). It was "basic" violent fare - and well done.
To be honest, I thought they spent too much time of the film setting up Willis' character turn to "the dark side", at one point wondering "get to killing the bad guys already". But, when the film gets there, it is entertaining, indeed.
As I walked past my "new friend" after the film was over, I asked him what he thought:
"I saw Bruce Willis killing bad guys, I'm good."
And that about sums it up.
Letter Grade B- (just know what you're getting into)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He did not walk away disappointed.
Directed by Eli Roth, DEATH WISH is a remake of the early 1970's film starring Charles Bronson about a "normal, family man" who snaps after his wife and daughter are assaulted. The Police' hands are tied, so he decides to take matters in his own hands and starts committing "vigilante justice".
Bruce Willis stars in this remake - and he is perfectly fine as the Doctor turned vigilante. Joining him is Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Elisabth Shue as his wife and BREAKING BAD'S Dean Norris as the cop who is chasing him. All of these actors do a perfectly fine job with what they are given to work with, but (let's be honest), fine acting - or intricate plot developments - are not what you are looking for in this film.
As my new friend put it - "I'm just here to see Bruce Willis kill bad guys".
And "kill bad guys" he does. But...not as often as I though he would. And...not nearly as graphically as I was expecting. Director Roth is known as a Director of Horror "splatter" films, "torture porn" fare like the HOSTEL films and CABIN FEVER. I was pleasantly surprised by the restraint that Roth has shown in the graphic violence in this film - I was expecting it to be a lot worse, almost stomach churning - but it just wasn't (except for 1 torture seen involving a car). It was "basic" violent fare - and well done.
To be honest, I thought they spent too much time of the film setting up Willis' character turn to "the dark side", at one point wondering "get to killing the bad guys already". But, when the film gets there, it is entertaining, indeed.
As I walked past my "new friend" after the film was over, I asked him what he thought:
"I saw Bruce Willis killing bad guys, I'm good."
And that about sums it up.
Letter Grade B- (just know what you're getting into)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated MediEvil in Video Games
Oct 29, 2019 (Updated Oct 29, 2019)
Classic
I remember playing this game, on the ps1. It was on a demo disk that had a collection of games and this was one of them. I just remember it being so cool and intresting. I havent played it since childhood, i want to play it again. So lets talk about it..
The game is set in the medieval Kingdom of Gallowmere and centres around the charlatan protagonist, Sir Daniel Fortesque, as he makes an attempt to stop antagonist Zarok's invasion of the kingdom whilst simultaneously redeeming himself.
Development began in 1995 at Millenium Interactive in Cambridge under the working title of Dead Man Dan. The visuals are heavily influenced by Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. Originally conceived as an arcade-style shooter for platforms such as Windows and the Sega Saturn, Sony's purchase of SCE Cambridge Studio evolved the game into a PlayStation title.
The game takes place across a variety of levels, many of which require certain objectives to be performed to progress. Sir Daniel Fortesque can use a variety of weapons, consisting of close range weapons such as swords and clubs to long range weapons such as crossbows. When not possessing any items, Dan is able to rip his arm off and use it for both melee and ranged attacks. Dan can equip a shield alongside weapons for defence, but shields have a limited amount of strength and are therefore best used sparingly. Throughout the game, Dan can visit gargoyle heads of two varieties: green ones offer Dan information while blue ones allow Dan to buy services or ammunition by using the treasures he finds.
Lets talk about the plot: In the year 1286, an evil sorcerer named Zarok plotted to take over the kingdom of Gallowmere with his undead army. It is told in legend that the champion, Sir Daniel Fortesque, led the King of Gallowmere's army to victory and managed to kill Zarok before he succumbed to his mortal wounds. In reality, however, Dan was struck down by the first arrow fired in the battle, with the king choosing to cover it up and declare Dan the "Hero of Gallowmere.
It is a classic ps1 underrated game, that people should play, if you havent. Their have recently released it on the ps4. And on that remake you can play the original 1998 game can be unlocked in the remake by completing special objectives. Which is cool.
Lastly shout of to @Kevin Phillipson for getting the hints/clues for this review right.
A must play game.
The game is set in the medieval Kingdom of Gallowmere and centres around the charlatan protagonist, Sir Daniel Fortesque, as he makes an attempt to stop antagonist Zarok's invasion of the kingdom whilst simultaneously redeeming himself.
Development began in 1995 at Millenium Interactive in Cambridge under the working title of Dead Man Dan. The visuals are heavily influenced by Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. Originally conceived as an arcade-style shooter for platforms such as Windows and the Sega Saturn, Sony's purchase of SCE Cambridge Studio evolved the game into a PlayStation title.
The game takes place across a variety of levels, many of which require certain objectives to be performed to progress. Sir Daniel Fortesque can use a variety of weapons, consisting of close range weapons such as swords and clubs to long range weapons such as crossbows. When not possessing any items, Dan is able to rip his arm off and use it for both melee and ranged attacks. Dan can equip a shield alongside weapons for defence, but shields have a limited amount of strength and are therefore best used sparingly. Throughout the game, Dan can visit gargoyle heads of two varieties: green ones offer Dan information while blue ones allow Dan to buy services or ammunition by using the treasures he finds.
Lets talk about the plot: In the year 1286, an evil sorcerer named Zarok plotted to take over the kingdom of Gallowmere with his undead army. It is told in legend that the champion, Sir Daniel Fortesque, led the King of Gallowmere's army to victory and managed to kill Zarok before he succumbed to his mortal wounds. In reality, however, Dan was struck down by the first arrow fired in the battle, with the king choosing to cover it up and declare Dan the "Hero of Gallowmere.
It is a classic ps1 underrated game, that people should play, if you havent. Their have recently released it on the ps4. And on that remake you can play the original 1998 game can be unlocked in the remake by completing special objectives. Which is cool.
Lastly shout of to @Kevin Phillipson for getting the hints/clues for this review right.
A must play game.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 1, 2020)
A Really Good Remake
Pet Semetary is a 2019 supernatural horror movie directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer. The movie was written by Jeff Buhler with screen story by Matt Greenberg. It is a remake/reboot of the original 1989 film adaptation of the 1983 Stephen King novel. Starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, and John Lithgow.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020 (Updated Oct 28, 2020)
The Vampire Among Them
Nosferatu The Vampyre- is a very slow movie. Very slow, for 90% of the time nothing happens and when some does happens its only for three minutes max. I always wanted to watch the oringal, never got a chance to, hopefully soon i will. As for this remake its so-so.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
Dean (6927 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Oct 25, 2017
Good cast (1 more)
Has the core ingredients to keep fans happy
A great update on a classic series
A very good "re-imaging" NOT a re-make! I can't believe how many people have said it's a remake, Jason wasn't in the first one hello! Rant over.
Comparing it to the original series of films this has a flash back of the ending of the first, for those who haven't seen it shame on you, and has more in common with the 2nd and 3rd installments. I actually enjoyed it, it gives the fans of the original films an updated version of what they loved about the films. There are plenty of inventive death scenes, sex, drugs and boozing with plenty of gorgeous girls in it. I thought it had a bit too much stoner behaviour, which seem to dumb down the film a bit. It has a slick visual style similar to the recent Texas chainsaw remakes, same director, as well as the same style of old gritty locations and sets. Overall a cool update for anyone who was a fan of the original films and better than nearly all of the previous films apart from the first which is a cult classic at least. Definitely one for slasher fans.
Comparing it to the original series of films this has a flash back of the ending of the first, for those who haven't seen it shame on you, and has more in common with the 2nd and 3rd installments. I actually enjoyed it, it gives the fans of the original films an updated version of what they loved about the films. There are plenty of inventive death scenes, sex, drugs and boozing with plenty of gorgeous girls in it. I thought it had a bit too much stoner behaviour, which seem to dumb down the film a bit. It has a slick visual style similar to the recent Texas chainsaw remakes, same director, as well as the same style of old gritty locations and sets. Overall a cool update for anyone who was a fan of the original films and better than nearly all of the previous films apart from the first which is a cult classic at least. Definitely one for slasher fans.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Sep 5, 2017
Most of the cast (1 more)
Jackie Earl Haley
Reimaging folk, not remake
I know I'm probably going to catch heat for this from self proclaimed horror movie God's. But, I enjoyed this movie.
With a few exceptions. ROONEY MARA WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU EVEN DOING IN THIS FILM!!!! Her dry and unimpressive portrayal of Nancy, a role made iconic by Heather Langenkamp, nearly destroyed this movie for me.
But along came Jackie Earl Haley. An amazing character actor who attacked the role of Freddy Krueger and honestly made him dark, destructive and truly demonic again. While he may not be Robert Englund, Haley made Freddy scary again. No more with the cracking jokes, no more fun. Just rage, destruction and murder.
And that's what you want in an iconic horror character.
Who cares if he's not 6ft 4.
Who cares if he's not funny.
That's the point of a reimagining.
Platinum Dunes did it well with Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As far as I'm concerned they did it fairly well with Friday the 13th.
And IMHO, they did it well with this movie.
Everything needs an update to evolve these days. And that includes even the most iconic horror movie characters.
With a few exceptions. ROONEY MARA WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU EVEN DOING IN THIS FILM!!!! Her dry and unimpressive portrayal of Nancy, a role made iconic by Heather Langenkamp, nearly destroyed this movie for me.
But along came Jackie Earl Haley. An amazing character actor who attacked the role of Freddy Krueger and honestly made him dark, destructive and truly demonic again. While he may not be Robert Englund, Haley made Freddy scary again. No more with the cracking jokes, no more fun. Just rage, destruction and murder.
And that's what you want in an iconic horror character.
Who cares if he's not 6ft 4.
Who cares if he's not funny.
That's the point of a reimagining.
Platinum Dunes did it well with Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As far as I'm concerned they did it fairly well with Friday the 13th.
And IMHO, they did it well with this movie.
Everything needs an update to evolve these days. And that includes even the most iconic horror movie characters.
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Mar 6, 2018 (Updated Mar 6, 2018)
I never fall asleep during films. I fell asleep.
The script and overall plot of this movie did not warrant big name actors like Cruise and Crowe. If anything, I think they played their parts badly and stopped a mediocre script from achieving the levels of mediocrity as a film. Cruise no longer has the charisma to play the cheeky, loveable rogue that this film needed (someone like hmmm Brendan Fraser) - that's not just saying what was needed to make it a decent remake of the "original", but what was needed for this script.
The plot relied on a number of stupid, illogical decisions by the main characters, and a lot of special effects. The aspects of the plot and the Mummy's mission which differed from the Fraser version were not well enough developed or explained to fully embed them in the plot - really, she just fancied Cruise?!
And the plot relied on too many coincidences, the discovery of the crusaders' tomb and the Mummy's tomb being almost exactly at the same time?! Really?!
And finally, the notion that there could be an area of London that is as-yet undiscovered and not covered in graffiti, human faeces and broken bottles is frankly ludicrous.
The plot relied on a number of stupid, illogical decisions by the main characters, and a lot of special effects. The aspects of the plot and the Mummy's mission which differed from the Fraser version were not well enough developed or explained to fully embed them in the plot - really, she just fancied Cruise?!
And the plot relied on too many coincidences, the discovery of the crusaders' tomb and the Mummy's tomb being almost exactly at the same time?! Really?!
And finally, the notion that there could be an area of London that is as-yet undiscovered and not covered in graffiti, human faeces and broken bottles is frankly ludicrous.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Invaders in TV
Mar 15, 2018 (Updated Mar 15, 2018)
One of the classic TV alien invasion shows; the theme tune and the various visual gimmicks (aliens with crooked little fingers who incinerate when killed) are quite well-remembered, along with (possibly) the fact that many of the episodes aren't actually any good.
Larry Cohen's original concept - a paranoid thriller with few overt SF elements - was rapidly abandoned, and Cohen himself had little involvement. The programme is really a victim of the time it was made: episodic storytelling means that the aliens come up with bizarrely different schemes on a weekly basis (weather control, infiltrating industry, man-eating butterflies), and there are nagging problems with the format - it is required that the aliens never just kill Vincent, and that he never manages to get evidence of their activity, either. Some would say that Roy Thinnes' intensely dour performance is not exactly what a show like this needs.
Still, there are some good individual episodes, and the iconography of the show does hang around in your head (it's clearly one of the shows that was a major influence on The X Files). It's a shame this kind of story has since been done to death as you could easily imagine a contemporary Invaders remake being really good (even though the 90s mini-series really wasn't).
Larry Cohen's original concept - a paranoid thriller with few overt SF elements - was rapidly abandoned, and Cohen himself had little involvement. The programme is really a victim of the time it was made: episodic storytelling means that the aliens come up with bizarrely different schemes on a weekly basis (weather control, infiltrating industry, man-eating butterflies), and there are nagging problems with the format - it is required that the aliens never just kill Vincent, and that he never manages to get evidence of their activity, either. Some would say that Roy Thinnes' intensely dour performance is not exactly what a show like this needs.
Still, there are some good individual episodes, and the iconography of the show does hang around in your head (it's clearly one of the shows that was a major influence on The X Files). It's a shame this kind of story has since been done to death as you could easily imagine a contemporary Invaders remake being really good (even though the 90s mini-series really wasn't).
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla (1954) in Movies
Mar 24, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
The very first Godzilla movie is essentially an unlicensed remake of Eugene Lourie's The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, with a prehistoric monster roused by atomic testing and going on the rampage - but being a bit worried about atom bombs is clearly not the same thing as actually having them used on your country, for this movie has a dark, traumatised quality to it completely absent from American monster movies.
The sequences with the human characters have that slightly melodramatic, soap-opera-ish feel to them common to many B-movies, but the actual monster attacks are astonishingly bleak and explicit about the massive body-count left in Godzilla's wake. You get a strong sense of a country left reeling, struggling to come to terms with why this catastrophe has been visited on them (the movie reflects the widespread Japanese belief that the country was a victim of the second world war, not an aggressor).
It's quite hard to compare this to most of the subsequent films, for this is obviously a much more serious parable. Some of the melodramatic plotting lets it down a bit, and the climax is rather disappointing given the strength of the earlier set pieces. But it's clear why people are still making movies about Godzilla nearly sixty-five years later.
The sequences with the human characters have that slightly melodramatic, soap-opera-ish feel to them common to many B-movies, but the actual monster attacks are astonishingly bleak and explicit about the massive body-count left in Godzilla's wake. You get a strong sense of a country left reeling, struggling to come to terms with why this catastrophe has been visited on them (the movie reflects the widespread Japanese belief that the country was a victim of the second world war, not an aggressor).
It's quite hard to compare this to most of the subsequent films, for this is obviously a much more serious parable. Some of the melodramatic plotting lets it down a bit, and the climax is rather disappointing given the strength of the earlier set pieces. But it's clear why people are still making movies about Godzilla nearly sixty-five years later.