Search
Search results
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 enterpriseâs, the quest is can their friendship last.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in âHellâs Kitchenâ, New York during the 1970âs and focusâ 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 Ghostbusterâs 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 âHellâs Kitchenâ, New York during the 1970âs and focusâ 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 Ghostbusterâs 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.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not going to lie, the trailer for this worried me greatly. Despite Emily Blunt's roots her accent sounds like someone's stereotypical idea of a prim and proper British nanny, it stuck out like a sore thumb from the trailer.
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Sonic the Hedgehogâą Classic
Games and Entertainment
App
Race at lightning speeds across seven classic zones as Sonic the Hedgehog. Run and spin through...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) created a post
May 18, 2018 (Updated Jun 12, 2018)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Donât Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melodyâs teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Danteâs fiancĂ© Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, âher boys.â Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen FouĂ©rĂ©) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film canât seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. Sheâs meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesnât work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. Itâs young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melodyâs leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connorâs showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like itâs trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. Thereâs a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audienceâs imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isnât the point. When thereâs this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. Thereâs nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When itâs not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, itâs just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isnât as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but itâs not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. Itâs barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lilaâs backstory about why sheâs so quiet doesnât add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; itâs just a repetition of what weâve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melodyâs teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Danteâs fiancĂ© Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, âher boys.â Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen FouĂ©rĂ©) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film canât seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. Sheâs meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesnât work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. Itâs young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melodyâs leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connorâs showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like itâs trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. Thereâs a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audienceâs imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isnât the point. When thereâs this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. Thereâs nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When itâs not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, itâs just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isnât as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but itâs not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. Itâs barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lilaâs backstory about why sheâs so quiet doesnât add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; itâs just a repetition of what weâve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Nov 25, 2017
Beauty and the Plot Holes
I know I shouldn't be looking to much in to animated movies turned in to live action, but this movie really had some obvious plot holes. I will get to a few of those in a bit. First I would like to say this was not a bad movie. I actually enjoyed it more then I thought I would have. The CGI was really good and the music/songs were done really well and really funny.
This movie played really closely to the animated movie. The beginning of the movie was one of the thing I felt was really off. I did not like the party being the back drop to him being a stuck up snob. I would have preferred him just turning the old lady away at the door and then getting cursed. I also thought all of the people turned into household objects were servants in the castle and not just party guests. Then at the end of the movie you have the household objects mingling with towns folks. I know they had to do it with how the beginning of the movie was set up, but it was really weird.
As I stated earlier I really like the CGI, I thought it fit in really well with the live actors. The Beast looked amazing, it had a very life like look to it. All of the household objects looked fantastic as well. They way they moved in the scenes, it did not feel computerized at all.
Now I know most of you have probably seen the animated movie and hopefully most of you have seen this movie. But one thing I like doing when I am watching a remake or know the story really well, I like to find the plot holes that are really funny and I will mention a few here. First is I like the fact they are in France and only say a few french words. I know its supposed to be a kids movie and most of them don't want to read subtitles, but at least give them all an accent. The only one with an accent was the candle holder. Second I would like to point out during the whole movie to and from the castle there were wolves that were ready to attack onsite. But when Belle headed back to the village to save her dad the Beast was not concerned at all about the wolves getting her. Last I would like to say that with how dangerous everything in the woods were Belle's dad left the horse behind at the castle even though he new about the wolves and how far away it was. Also there was the fact that if Belle was going to be there forever, why does she even need the horse.
Well this was a fun movie and think everyone should see it, maybe with a kid in the room so it is not weird. Until next time, enjoy the show.
This movie played really closely to the animated movie. The beginning of the movie was one of the thing I felt was really off. I did not like the party being the back drop to him being a stuck up snob. I would have preferred him just turning the old lady away at the door and then getting cursed. I also thought all of the people turned into household objects were servants in the castle and not just party guests. Then at the end of the movie you have the household objects mingling with towns folks. I know they had to do it with how the beginning of the movie was set up, but it was really weird.
As I stated earlier I really like the CGI, I thought it fit in really well with the live actors. The Beast looked amazing, it had a very life like look to it. All of the household objects looked fantastic as well. They way they moved in the scenes, it did not feel computerized at all.
Now I know most of you have probably seen the animated movie and hopefully most of you have seen this movie. But one thing I like doing when I am watching a remake or know the story really well, I like to find the plot holes that are really funny and I will mention a few here. First is I like the fact they are in France and only say a few french words. I know its supposed to be a kids movie and most of them don't want to read subtitles, but at least give them all an accent. The only one with an accent was the candle holder. Second I would like to point out during the whole movie to and from the castle there were wolves that were ready to attack onsite. But when Belle headed back to the village to save her dad the Beast was not concerned at all about the wolves getting her. Last I would like to say that with how dangerous everything in the woods were Belle's dad left the horse behind at the castle even though he new about the wolves and how far away it was. Also there was the fact that if Belle was going to be there forever, why does she even need the horse.
Well this was a fun movie and think everyone should see it, maybe with a kid in the room so it is not weird. Until next time, enjoy the show.
The kids are amazing (1 more)
So is Pennywise!
If you're of a certain age you'll probably remember the 'It' TV mini series of 1990, based on Stephen Kings classic novel. And you'll also have lasting memories of Tim Curry as Pennywise, the demonic clown who terrorises the town of Derry, Maine. His was the definitive evil clown, the benchmark for all scary movie clowns to come. This big screen version remake had a lot to live up to.
We meet the new Pennywise pretty early on in the movie as young Georgie ventures out into the heavy rain to play with the paper boat that he and older brother Bill just made. Anyone familiar with the story, or the trailer for the movie, knows exactly what's coming, so it's no surprise when Pennywise appears in the drain where Georgie loses his boat. Calmly menacing, and excellently played by Bill SkarsgÄrd, but sounding strangely like Scooby-Doo as he chats away to Georgie, which kind of made him more funny than scary. It's not until he bites off Georgie's arm and drags him down into the sewer that you know he means business.
From there, Pennywise takes a bit of a backseat as we're introduced to our core cast of kids. It's been a while since Georgie disappeared and kids are still going missing around town, meaning there's now a 7pm curfew in effect. Bill is still mourning the loss of younger brother Georgie and his group of friends all have their own personal issues and demons too. These are gradually explored throughout the movie and are in some ways more sad and disturbing than Pennywise. On top of that, the local bully and his gang like to make their lives hell too and all of this is just hugely enjoyable, giving off a wonderful Stand By Me/The Goonies/Stranger Things feel, even more so as the movie is set in the 80s. The kids swear, make jokes together and at the expense of each other. They ride their bikes around town, have rock fights with the bullies and the entire cast is just a joy to watch.
Eventually, Pennywise steps things up a notch as he begins appearing to each of the kids, playing on their fears as he tries to lure them to their deaths. His appearances tend to involve a creepy, chilling build up, followed by a surprisingly effective jump scare (certainly some of the women in nearby seats to me seemed to be constantly on the brink of having a heart attack!). The scares become increasingly inventive and enjoyable as the movie progresses and while not as scary and gory as some might like, they still manage to work well within the whole movie.
I had a lot of fun watching It. And this is only Chapter One of a two part series, with Chapter Two set to focus on the part of the story where the kids are all adults. I can't wait to see what comes next!
We meet the new Pennywise pretty early on in the movie as young Georgie ventures out into the heavy rain to play with the paper boat that he and older brother Bill just made. Anyone familiar with the story, or the trailer for the movie, knows exactly what's coming, so it's no surprise when Pennywise appears in the drain where Georgie loses his boat. Calmly menacing, and excellently played by Bill SkarsgÄrd, but sounding strangely like Scooby-Doo as he chats away to Georgie, which kind of made him more funny than scary. It's not until he bites off Georgie's arm and drags him down into the sewer that you know he means business.
From there, Pennywise takes a bit of a backseat as we're introduced to our core cast of kids. It's been a while since Georgie disappeared and kids are still going missing around town, meaning there's now a 7pm curfew in effect. Bill is still mourning the loss of younger brother Georgie and his group of friends all have their own personal issues and demons too. These are gradually explored throughout the movie and are in some ways more sad and disturbing than Pennywise. On top of that, the local bully and his gang like to make their lives hell too and all of this is just hugely enjoyable, giving off a wonderful Stand By Me/The Goonies/Stranger Things feel, even more so as the movie is set in the 80s. The kids swear, make jokes together and at the expense of each other. They ride their bikes around town, have rock fights with the bullies and the entire cast is just a joy to watch.
Eventually, Pennywise steps things up a notch as he begins appearing to each of the kids, playing on their fears as he tries to lure them to their deaths. His appearances tend to involve a creepy, chilling build up, followed by a surprisingly effective jump scare (certainly some of the women in nearby seats to me seemed to be constantly on the brink of having a heart attack!). The scares become increasingly inventive and enjoyable as the movie progresses and while not as scary and gory as some might like, they still manage to work well within the whole movie.
I had a lot of fun watching It. And this is only Chapter One of a two part series, with Chapter Two set to focus on the part of the story where the kids are all adults. I can't wait to see what comes next!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Michael Myers has returned, again! But this time itâs personal. Halloween II is the brainchild of Rob Zombie who directed the remake of the 1978 John Carpenter original.
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michaelâs dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what weâre left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesnât ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michaelâs character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michaelâs iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isnât usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the filmâs long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowellâs portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesnât suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collectorâs shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michaelâs dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what weâre left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesnât ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michaelâs character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michaelâs iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isnât usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the filmâs long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowellâs portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesnât suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collectorâs shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) Jul 21, 2020