Search
Search results
Fred (860 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
This is how you ruin a classic
Dumbo is one of my favorite Disney films. The original, not this crap. When told that his film was not long enough to be considered a full-length movie & that he would have to add 10 more minutes or so, Disney said "No. It's perfect the way it is." And he was right. The people who made this live-action remake apparently never heard that story. It's almost 2 hours long. The original story of the first film is done in about the first 20 minutes of this film, then it's an original sequel, basically.
The first & main problem of the film is the most obvious. The focus on the human characters over the animal characters. There are no talking animals in this one. Sure, Dumbo didn't talk, but he had Timothy mouse with him to speak for him. There's no stork, the bully elephants are gone, even the racist, but very entertaining crows are completely gone.
Second problem: Some of the music from the original film is here, but instrumental versions. Only "Baby Mine" is sung. We hear a clip of "Casey Jr." at the beginning. At the very end of the credits, we hear a bit of "When I See a Elephant Fly", but no "Look Out For Mr. Stork". But the biggest mistake was what they did with "Pink Elephants on Parade" In the original film, Dumbo accidentally drinks some champagne & gets drunk. He then blows bubbles & the bubbles take shape & thus begins one of the greatest scenes in Disney history. The bubbles take the shape of dancing, skating & tromping elephants. The scene is a nightmare & probably scared some kids in the day. The song itself is both fun & creepy. This should be perfect Tim Burton stuff, but in this film, it is not. In this film, circus performers are creating giant bubbles & somehow they are taking the shape of the elephants. In fact, they're copies of the elephants (and camel) from the original film. The song plays, but again, no lyrics. It's also not very well directed. Instead of looking like a nightmare, they keep cutting to Dumbo, watching the performers, with a smile.
And that brings me to another problem. Tim Burton. Like most Tim Burton movies, it looks fantastic, but it's just boring. The story is boring & unoriginal (Free Willy anyone?) I didn't get to like any of the human characters to care. They kind of just go through the motions. Dumbo himself lacks character & I never really felt for him.
I know Disney is set on remaking their classics & I haven't seen any before (and probably will not see anymore after this one). It breaks my heart to see Disney reduced to this sort of thing. I'll stick with the originals, thank you.
The first & main problem of the film is the most obvious. The focus on the human characters over the animal characters. There are no talking animals in this one. Sure, Dumbo didn't talk, but he had Timothy mouse with him to speak for him. There's no stork, the bully elephants are gone, even the racist, but very entertaining crows are completely gone.
Second problem: Some of the music from the original film is here, but instrumental versions. Only "Baby Mine" is sung. We hear a clip of "Casey Jr." at the beginning. At the very end of the credits, we hear a bit of "When I See a Elephant Fly", but no "Look Out For Mr. Stork". But the biggest mistake was what they did with "Pink Elephants on Parade" In the original film, Dumbo accidentally drinks some champagne & gets drunk. He then blows bubbles & the bubbles take shape & thus begins one of the greatest scenes in Disney history. The bubbles take the shape of dancing, skating & tromping elephants. The scene is a nightmare & probably scared some kids in the day. The song itself is both fun & creepy. This should be perfect Tim Burton stuff, but in this film, it is not. In this film, circus performers are creating giant bubbles & somehow they are taking the shape of the elephants. In fact, they're copies of the elephants (and camel) from the original film. The song plays, but again, no lyrics. It's also not very well directed. Instead of looking like a nightmare, they keep cutting to Dumbo, watching the performers, with a smile.
And that brings me to another problem. Tim Burton. Like most Tim Burton movies, it looks fantastic, but it's just boring. The story is boring & unoriginal (Free Willy anyone?) I didn't get to like any of the human characters to care. They kind of just go through the motions. Dumbo himself lacks character & I never really felt for him.
I know Disney is set on remaking their classics & I haven't seen any before (and probably will not see anymore after this one). It breaks my heart to see Disney reduced to this sort of thing. I'll stick with the originals, thank you.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Christine Brown seems to have everything going well for her at this point in her life. She has a boyfriend who cares about her and loves her unconditionally, a great job at the bank as a loan officer with more than enough room for advancement in the company, and speaking of, it's between her and one other employee for the vacant assistant manager position. One day though, a strange looking gypsy shows up at Christine's bank asking for another extension before they foreclose on her home. After talking it over with her boss, it's up to Christine to decide on approving the loan and she comes to the conclusion of denying it. Mrs. Ganush begs and pleads with Christine, but Christine won't budge on her decision. After feeling like Christine wronged her by denying her pleas, Mrs. Ganush puts a curse on her and unless Christine can find some sort of loophole, she'll be going to hell in three days.
This is Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre, in case you hadn't heard that in the trailer or anything else promoting the film. Drag Me To Hell has already had such an overwhelmingly positive response when it comes to feedback and the truth of the matter is that the film is genuinely that entertaining. Not only did Sam Raimi return to the horror genre, but he did it so flawlessly and without missing a beat. He's on top of his game and, dare I say, the best he's ever been. The film only seemed to get better as it progressed. It's somehow capable of combining comedy, suspense, romance, and horror all into one amazing final product. A film that can do something like make you laugh out loud one minute, scare you the next, gross you out after that, and tear at your heartstrings is something special. And it's not like the film does that one time and calls it quits. It goes through that cycle (laugh, scare, gross, heartwarming) over and over again throughout the film. Sam Raimi has struck cinematic gold.
Drag Me To Hell is a hell of a lot of fun. It truly has something to offer anyone looking for a good time at the movies. Not only is the film based on an original story, but it's an original story that is worth being told, worth listening to, and incredibly entertaining. Originality seems to be extinct when it comes to horror these days. It's just so refreshing to see a film that not only isn't a remake, but drenches itself in the fact that it offers something new. Sam Raimi has delivered a cinematic feature that has rejuvenated what we once referred to as "the horror film." Let's hope that other filmmakers can tread the same path that he has paved the way with.
This is Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre, in case you hadn't heard that in the trailer or anything else promoting the film. Drag Me To Hell has already had such an overwhelmingly positive response when it comes to feedback and the truth of the matter is that the film is genuinely that entertaining. Not only did Sam Raimi return to the horror genre, but he did it so flawlessly and without missing a beat. He's on top of his game and, dare I say, the best he's ever been. The film only seemed to get better as it progressed. It's somehow capable of combining comedy, suspense, romance, and horror all into one amazing final product. A film that can do something like make you laugh out loud one minute, scare you the next, gross you out after that, and tear at your heartstrings is something special. And it's not like the film does that one time and calls it quits. It goes through that cycle (laugh, scare, gross, heartwarming) over and over again throughout the film. Sam Raimi has struck cinematic gold.
Drag Me To Hell is a hell of a lot of fun. It truly has something to offer anyone looking for a good time at the movies. Not only is the film based on an original story, but it's an original story that is worth being told, worth listening to, and incredibly entertaining. Originality seems to be extinct when it comes to horror these days. It's just so refreshing to see a film that not only isn't a remake, but drenches itself in the fact that it offers something new. Sam Raimi has delivered a cinematic feature that has rejuvenated what we once referred to as "the horror film." Let's hope that other filmmakers can tread the same path that he has paved the way with.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Bornless Ones (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Take 4 Outrageously good looking guys and gals, A 5th guy with some sort of life challenging disease… Move them into a new out of the way house with a secret history, not to far from an Institution, Have them desecrate and destroy what look to be supernatural symbols boarding up the windows and you have Bornless Ones… Oh and there is scary possession, Craziness and a fair bit of really well done gore, Seriously well done Gore!!!
Now that’s not to say that this movie lacks originality in any way because it really does not. Ok we may have seen the creepy house in the middle of nowhere that scares the crap out of its occupants before, but can we really ever get too much of that. The difference I found was that Bornless Ones is in many ways a spiritual cousin to movies like Evil Dead and in many ways actually betters what has come before in its Genre. One of those ways is the performance our cast put in.
Emily (Margaret Judson – The Newsroom) has decided that she cant look after her Cerebal Palsy suffering brother Zach (Micheal Johnston – MTV’s Teen Wolf) anymore, she is going to move him to an institution. However fearing he is going to be too far away from her, Emily and her boyfriend Jesse (Devin Goodsell) buy a house nearby, the house has a past. Emily and Jesse are accompanied by there friends Woodrow (Mark Furze – Home and Away, Underbelly) and Michelle (Bobby T) to help them move in. That’s when the movie cranks it up to 11 and everything goes nuts as our core characters are taken hold of by a paranormal force one by one and must fight for survival.
My horror kick has absolutely continued into 2017 and Bornless Ones was a fantastic place to start. Its a hell of a lot more Evil Dead than the Evil Dead Remake which sucked and this movie really had me in from the start. It does help that it wastes no time at all, no sooner had they all moved in and the shenanigans began.
Alexander Babaev has done a great job on Directing and Writing with this movie and while it falls into the Indie bracket of movies it deserves to be seen by a wider audience. The acting from our core cast is better than you might expect, infact they all smash it out of the park. The acting once possession has taken hold is creepy as shit and utterly compelling.
Bornless Ones is definitely worth a watch if you are a fan of this genre, it is a lot better than most of the possession movies coming out these days. Give it a try…
Now that’s not to say that this movie lacks originality in any way because it really does not. Ok we may have seen the creepy house in the middle of nowhere that scares the crap out of its occupants before, but can we really ever get too much of that. The difference I found was that Bornless Ones is in many ways a spiritual cousin to movies like Evil Dead and in many ways actually betters what has come before in its Genre. One of those ways is the performance our cast put in.
Emily (Margaret Judson – The Newsroom) has decided that she cant look after her Cerebal Palsy suffering brother Zach (Micheal Johnston – MTV’s Teen Wolf) anymore, she is going to move him to an institution. However fearing he is going to be too far away from her, Emily and her boyfriend Jesse (Devin Goodsell) buy a house nearby, the house has a past. Emily and Jesse are accompanied by there friends Woodrow (Mark Furze – Home and Away, Underbelly) and Michelle (Bobby T) to help them move in. That’s when the movie cranks it up to 11 and everything goes nuts as our core characters are taken hold of by a paranormal force one by one and must fight for survival.
My horror kick has absolutely continued into 2017 and Bornless Ones was a fantastic place to start. Its a hell of a lot more Evil Dead than the Evil Dead Remake which sucked and this movie really had me in from the start. It does help that it wastes no time at all, no sooner had they all moved in and the shenanigans began.
Alexander Babaev has done a great job on Directing and Writing with this movie and while it falls into the Indie bracket of movies it deserves to be seen by a wider audience. The acting from our core cast is better than you might expect, infact they all smash it out of the park. The acting once possession has taken hold is creepy as shit and utterly compelling.
Bornless Ones is definitely worth a watch if you are a fan of this genre, it is a lot better than most of the possession movies coming out these days. Give it a try…
JT (287 KP) rated Let Me In (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
t’s a hard thing remaking or rebooting a classic, whatever you want to call it, you have to make sure of one thing…don’t balls it up! Thankfully director Matt Reeves doesn’t do that, in fact he takes a brilliant original and puts his own spin on it.
The story of course is very much the same, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a shy and slightly reclusive young boy who is struggling to come to terms with his parents impending divorce. On top of that he is viciously bullied at school and has no one to turn to but the imaginations of his own doing and personality.
When he befriends Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is equally as shy as him a friendship blossoms between them against the backdrop of a cold and at times sinister winter. Abby is not quite what she seems deep down, that much is clear from the outset as her father (Richard Jenkins) goes out on nightly rampages to forage for the one thing that will keep her alive, blood.
Reeves does well to take the story in some new subtle directions such as the revelation that her so called father might well have started out as a mere boy himself and is purely by Abby’s side through need rather than wanting.
It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity
There are some scenes however that stay true to Let the Right One In which of course would be lost if not included, but also the addition of new ones that are very much welcomed.
The acting is exceptional from the young leading man and woman. Smit-McPhee whose run out in the apocalyptic journey The Road only showcased his acting stature, and Moretz proves that she has a great future, if not already, having made her mark.
Reeves keeps this film focused on the young pairing with Owen’s mother being reduced to a mere blur even when she stands only a few feet away, his Dad just a voice on the end of the phone. Unlike the original Let Me In is very much a horror flick for the blood thirsty millennial generation, and the gore is well used and timed to perfection. It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity.
There is no reason to compare this film with the original, despite the story and protagonists all being the same Reeves conducts his approach with originality that makes this equally brilliant.
We should all applaud Reeves for doing something that is incredibly hard in a fast changing industry that craves money from remaking or rebooting films to satisfy a new generation of film goers. He’s made a remake that was actually good!
The story of course is very much the same, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a shy and slightly reclusive young boy who is struggling to come to terms with his parents impending divorce. On top of that he is viciously bullied at school and has no one to turn to but the imaginations of his own doing and personality.
When he befriends Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is equally as shy as him a friendship blossoms between them against the backdrop of a cold and at times sinister winter. Abby is not quite what she seems deep down, that much is clear from the outset as her father (Richard Jenkins) goes out on nightly rampages to forage for the one thing that will keep her alive, blood.
Reeves does well to take the story in some new subtle directions such as the revelation that her so called father might well have started out as a mere boy himself and is purely by Abby’s side through need rather than wanting.
It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity
There are some scenes however that stay true to Let the Right One In which of course would be lost if not included, but also the addition of new ones that are very much welcomed.
The acting is exceptional from the young leading man and woman. Smit-McPhee whose run out in the apocalyptic journey The Road only showcased his acting stature, and Moretz proves that she has a great future, if not already, having made her mark.
Reeves keeps this film focused on the young pairing with Owen’s mother being reduced to a mere blur even when she stands only a few feet away, his Dad just a voice on the end of the phone. Unlike the original Let Me In is very much a horror flick for the blood thirsty millennial generation, and the gore is well used and timed to perfection. It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity.
There is no reason to compare this film with the original, despite the story and protagonists all being the same Reeves conducts his approach with originality that makes this equally brilliant.
We should all applaud Reeves for doing something that is incredibly hard in a fast changing industry that craves money from remaking or rebooting films to satisfy a new generation of film goers. He’s made a remake that was actually good!
JT (287 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Mar 23, 2020
Does what it says on the tin
Big action blockbusters probably don’t get much bigger than this, certainly, the budgets don’t. Just ask Gareth Edwards, who is making his second feature (again about monsters) brings to life one of the films most iconic.
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Arthur (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Arthur Bach is a spoiled, boyish, alcoholic, New York City playboy with amazing hair and heir to the family business and fortune. He and his faithful sidekick Bitterman travel far and wide to have fun and drink. Well, Arthur drinks, Bitterman drives. He is also very dependent on his nanny Hobson who has been with him since he was born and still takes care of him. One day his mother Vivienne decides she’s had it with his antics, embarrassing her and the family company, so she gives him an ultimatum: either he marries Susan Johnson or he will be cut-off and have to fend for himself on the mean streets of New York City.
Though he doesn’t love Susan, he eventually decides to go along with his mother’s wishes and propose to her. But during this time he also meets the enchanting Naomi, an unlicensed tour guide of Grand Central Terminal who has dreams of being a children’s author. As the wedding day draws nearer and nearer, Arthur and Naomi grow closer and closer. Then tragedy strikes. How this affects Arthur could change his entire life. Does he marry Susan and keep his wealth but gain the world’s scariest father-in-law? Does he choose the mean streets of New York City to be with Naomi? Or do he and Bitterman jump into the Batmobile and drive off into the sunset?
This remake of the 1981 movie Arthur honored the wonderful story that many of us know and love from the original film while still possessing its own unique flair. I believe Dudley Moore would have been very happy with Russell Brand’s excellent performance as Arthur Bach (if you disagree, hold a seance and prove me wrong). Helen Mirren does an amazing job as Hobson and she pretty much owns any scene she is in. Nick Nolte & Jennifer Garner were great as Burt (world’s scariest future father-in-law) and Susan Johnson (Arthur’s total-10-on-the-L.A.-scale) fiancee. Last but not least, I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of: Greta Gerwig as Naomi (Arthur’s love interest), Geraldine James as Vivienne Bach (Arthur’s Mom) and Luis Guzman as Bitterman his faithful sidekick and chauffeur (though I do wish Luis would have been given more screen time). The film definitely kept the audiences attention from start to finish but we were all laughing so much that I have to see it again to hear the jokes that I missed the first time.
If you were sober when you saw the original movie you probably remember the key parts of the story line but if not then this movie will seem like an entirely original movie to you.
Though he doesn’t love Susan, he eventually decides to go along with his mother’s wishes and propose to her. But during this time he also meets the enchanting Naomi, an unlicensed tour guide of Grand Central Terminal who has dreams of being a children’s author. As the wedding day draws nearer and nearer, Arthur and Naomi grow closer and closer. Then tragedy strikes. How this affects Arthur could change his entire life. Does he marry Susan and keep his wealth but gain the world’s scariest father-in-law? Does he choose the mean streets of New York City to be with Naomi? Or do he and Bitterman jump into the Batmobile and drive off into the sunset?
This remake of the 1981 movie Arthur honored the wonderful story that many of us know and love from the original film while still possessing its own unique flair. I believe Dudley Moore would have been very happy with Russell Brand’s excellent performance as Arthur Bach (if you disagree, hold a seance and prove me wrong). Helen Mirren does an amazing job as Hobson and she pretty much owns any scene she is in. Nick Nolte & Jennifer Garner were great as Burt (world’s scariest future father-in-law) and Susan Johnson (Arthur’s total-10-on-the-L.A.-scale) fiancee. Last but not least, I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of: Greta Gerwig as Naomi (Arthur’s love interest), Geraldine James as Vivienne Bach (Arthur’s Mom) and Luis Guzman as Bitterman his faithful sidekick and chauffeur (though I do wish Luis would have been given more screen time). The film definitely kept the audiences attention from start to finish but we were all laughing so much that I have to see it again to hear the jokes that I missed the first time.
If you were sober when you saw the original movie you probably remember the key parts of the story line but if not then this movie will seem like an entirely original movie to you.
Sonic The Hedgehog Classic
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
10.0
Rate It
App
The Sonic game that started it all is now free-to-play and optimized for mobile devices! Race at...
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Final Fantasy VII Remake in Video Games
Jul 4, 2020
Beautiful gameplay
I have to hold my hands up and say that I've never played the original. I started on FF8 as a teenager and never quite got around to backtracking to 7, so I'm fortunate in a way that I could play this game with no preconceived ideas.
This is by far the most beautiful game I've ever played. The graphics are stunning, to the point where you can barely tell the difference between film style cut scenes and standard gameplay. Everything from the scenery to the characters looks amazing. The story is your typical convoluted yet endearing Final Fantasy plot with a lot of dialogue, some of it entirely unnecessary (but nothing more than you'd expect with a FF game).
The gameplay itself is good but unusual. It's a lot more linear than you'd expect with little options to run around in an open world like you would usually in an FF game. But I didn't mind this so much because it meant at least you didn't have to run around for hours across an entire world to complete side quests. The most divisive aspect of the gameplay is by far the battle mode. In the first opening battle I hated it, but gradually I got used to it - it's just so different from the normal FF gameplay. It isn't without it's flaws though, the worst one is due to the ability for enemies to attack you whenever, there is a rather frustrating feature where if you use your ATB to choose an action and get attacked right after, you lose the action you were about to take. Rather annoying. The gameplay on the motorbike too is interesting and different, but also becomes a little tedious and annoying towards the end.
I'm also in two minds about how this is only a remake of the first few hours of the original game. It gives off a rather unfinished vibe, and kind of feels like how you felt getting to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring. Whilst I'm intrigued to see how the story ends, I hope the gameplay changes a little as more of the same for another 40+ hours (x however many parts are planned) is a bit much. I also think its crazy how you can complete the main story with the majority of side quests done, yet you've only achieved 51%. I really haven't got the willpower to be a completions any more!
Despite my moans above, these are only really minor niggles and overall this is a stunning game that I really enjoyed playing. Definitely deserves the award for the most beautiful game I've ever played.
This is by far the most beautiful game I've ever played. The graphics are stunning, to the point where you can barely tell the difference between film style cut scenes and standard gameplay. Everything from the scenery to the characters looks amazing. The story is your typical convoluted yet endearing Final Fantasy plot with a lot of dialogue, some of it entirely unnecessary (but nothing more than you'd expect with a FF game).
The gameplay itself is good but unusual. It's a lot more linear than you'd expect with little options to run around in an open world like you would usually in an FF game. But I didn't mind this so much because it meant at least you didn't have to run around for hours across an entire world to complete side quests. The most divisive aspect of the gameplay is by far the battle mode. In the first opening battle I hated it, but gradually I got used to it - it's just so different from the normal FF gameplay. It isn't without it's flaws though, the worst one is due to the ability for enemies to attack you whenever, there is a rather frustrating feature where if you use your ATB to choose an action and get attacked right after, you lose the action you were about to take. Rather annoying. The gameplay on the motorbike too is interesting and different, but also becomes a little tedious and annoying towards the end.
I'm also in two minds about how this is only a remake of the first few hours of the original game. It gives off a rather unfinished vibe, and kind of feels like how you felt getting to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring. Whilst I'm intrigued to see how the story ends, I hope the gameplay changes a little as more of the same for another 40+ hours (x however many parts are planned) is a bit much. I also think its crazy how you can complete the main story with the majority of side quests done, yet you've only achieved 51%. I really haven't got the willpower to be a completions any more!
Despite my moans above, these are only really minor niggles and overall this is a stunning game that I really enjoyed playing. Definitely deserves the award for the most beautiful game I've ever played.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When their mobster husbands are all sent to prison, three women decide that the only way they can survive is to take over their criminal enterprise’s, the quest is can their friendship last.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.