Search
JT (287 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Colin Farrell as a vampire? He would hardly be my choice as the leading man in this one, yet beneath it all you get the impression that he loved every minute.
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
JT (287 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I've always said that the vast majority of horror remakes just don’t better the original, and this one can also join that list. Stephen King adaptations are a bit hit and miss and this new incarnation is no different.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel. The film follows the Creed family as they relocate to the outskirts of a quiet town in Maine, called Ludlow. Head of the family Louis (Jason Clarke), is starting a new job at the university hospital and their new home feels like the perfect place to settle.
But it doesn’t take long for things to go pear-shaped when daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) stumbles across a Pet Sematary (misspelt). There she meets neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who warns her that it is not the place for a young girl to play – despite a procession of creepy children in masks walking through the woods. However, a family tragedy sparks Jud to reach out to Louis and offer him a way to resurrect the past.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel
Co-directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer Pet Sematary skims over family relationships and races right to the tragedy (which was blatantly given away in the trailer) to satisfy the audience by giving them what they want. However, there is not enough time for Kölsch and Widmyer to delve deeper into the pages of King’s novel to extract parts that could have enhanced the narrative even further.
The ending is unsatisfactory and the directors, looking to impart their take on the story, change and leave out significant parts of King’s book. This is both annoying and surprising. That said, the film is not without the odd positive, despite falling just short of being a decent horror remake.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel. The film follows the Creed family as they relocate to the outskirts of a quiet town in Maine, called Ludlow. Head of the family Louis (Jason Clarke), is starting a new job at the university hospital and their new home feels like the perfect place to settle.
But it doesn’t take long for things to go pear-shaped when daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) stumbles across a Pet Sematary (misspelt). There she meets neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who warns her that it is not the place for a young girl to play – despite a procession of creepy children in masks walking through the woods. However, a family tragedy sparks Jud to reach out to Louis and offer him a way to resurrect the past.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel
Co-directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer Pet Sematary skims over family relationships and races right to the tragedy (which was blatantly given away in the trailer) to satisfy the audience by giving them what they want. However, there is not enough time for Kölsch and Widmyer to delve deeper into the pages of King’s novel to extract parts that could have enhanced the narrative even further.
The ending is unsatisfactory and the directors, looking to impart their take on the story, change and leave out significant parts of King’s book. This is both annoying and surprising. That said, the film is not without the odd positive, despite falling just short of being a decent horror remake.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
Lacking in heart
The Lion King is one of my all time favourite Disney films, so I approached this 'live action' remake with a lot of trepidation, and I'm afraid to say I was right to be worried.
Visually it looks stunning, which shouldn't really be a surprise as it has been brought to us by the same guys that did The Jungle Book. However I'm afraid the visuals are pretty much all this film has going for it. This film is virtually a carbon copy of the original animation but with all of the heart, soul and humour taken out of it. The problem with these Disney live action remakes is they're unnecessary and stuck in a difficult position - differ too much from the original and people hate it, but sticking too close to the original and it begs the question as to why not just watch the original? It's more difficult for The Lion King as it's gone from being cartoon animation to CGI animation and apart from looking more natural, that's the only real difference.
They've lost virtually all of the magic that made the original great in the first place. The humour either falls flat due to the poor execution, or has been removed and replaced with something much less witty and funny. I mean, where was dress in drag & do the hula?! I dont think the voice cast helps. Other than Chiwetel Ejiofor and of course James Earl Jones, the rest of the voice cast just seemed ridiculously out of place and ill fitting with the film. I cringed every time I heard Zazu as Jon Oliver is definitely no Rowan Atkinson! And dont even get me started on Beyonce. We really didnt need her horrific versions of songs thrown in too. Although the rest of the songs did at least make the rest of the film more bearable.
Altogether despite the stunning CGI, this is a very poor copy of the original and definitely one I wont be watching again - just stick to the original.
Visually it looks stunning, which shouldn't really be a surprise as it has been brought to us by the same guys that did The Jungle Book. However I'm afraid the visuals are pretty much all this film has going for it. This film is virtually a carbon copy of the original animation but with all of the heart, soul and humour taken out of it. The problem with these Disney live action remakes is they're unnecessary and stuck in a difficult position - differ too much from the original and people hate it, but sticking too close to the original and it begs the question as to why not just watch the original? It's more difficult for The Lion King as it's gone from being cartoon animation to CGI animation and apart from looking more natural, that's the only real difference.
They've lost virtually all of the magic that made the original great in the first place. The humour either falls flat due to the poor execution, or has been removed and replaced with something much less witty and funny. I mean, where was dress in drag & do the hula?! I dont think the voice cast helps. Other than Chiwetel Ejiofor and of course James Earl Jones, the rest of the voice cast just seemed ridiculously out of place and ill fitting with the film. I cringed every time I heard Zazu as Jon Oliver is definitely no Rowan Atkinson! And dont even get me started on Beyonce. We really didnt need her horrific versions of songs thrown in too. Although the rest of the songs did at least make the rest of the film more bearable.
Altogether despite the stunning CGI, this is a very poor copy of the original and definitely one I wont be watching again - just stick to the original.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Monster Trucks (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
It’s safe to say that movies nowadays are either remakes of beloved classic movies, based off a book, or are a sequel. Original ideas and story lines are few and far between. When I first heard about this so-called movie Monster Trucks, I thought it was going to be about those hug trucks you see at Monster Jam shows driving over cars with their loud engines entertaining crowds. This film is far from anything of the sort. It’s based off the idea from a 4 year old about monster trucks actually having monsters in the trucks.
Set in a small oil drilling town in North Dakota, Tripp (Lucas Till), a troubled high school student, befriends an extraterrestrial squid-like creature that takes up residence in the hood of Tripp’s truck. After an accident occurs at a nearby drilling site displacing this creature, it doesn’t take long for the oil company to realize if they don’t locate this creature, they will have to cease drilling which affects their bottom line. With the help of his friend Meredith (Jane Levy), Tripp realizes he must take his new friend back to his home before the villainous oil company CEO ( Rob Lowe) catches them.
If you take the movie for what it is: trucks, monsters, friends, and good guy/bad guys-it’s an entertaining film with some great laugh out loud moments that also attempts to tug at the heartstrings from a pair of unlikely friends. Dig deeper and try to analyze every piece of the movie, you’ll only see the outlandish, unrealistic, and far fetch concept with underdeveloped character relationships. All in all, I enjoyed the film. The friendship between Tripp and the creature he named Creech was similar to that of Elliott and E.T. with less drama. It brought me back to my childhood. It taught my son the meaning of friendship, sacrifice, and loyalty.
Set in a small oil drilling town in North Dakota, Tripp (Lucas Till), a troubled high school student, befriends an extraterrestrial squid-like creature that takes up residence in the hood of Tripp’s truck. After an accident occurs at a nearby drilling site displacing this creature, it doesn’t take long for the oil company to realize if they don’t locate this creature, they will have to cease drilling which affects their bottom line. With the help of his friend Meredith (Jane Levy), Tripp realizes he must take his new friend back to his home before the villainous oil company CEO ( Rob Lowe) catches them.
If you take the movie for what it is: trucks, monsters, friends, and good guy/bad guys-it’s an entertaining film with some great laugh out loud moments that also attempts to tug at the heartstrings from a pair of unlikely friends. Dig deeper and try to analyze every piece of the movie, you’ll only see the outlandish, unrealistic, and far fetch concept with underdeveloped character relationships. All in all, I enjoyed the film. The friendship between Tripp and the creature he named Creech was similar to that of Elliott and E.T. with less drama. It brought me back to my childhood. It taught my son the meaning of friendship, sacrifice, and loyalty.
Mattia Gagliardi (14 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 4, 2019
Will Smith does a good job (1 more)
It's watchable
It pales in comparison with the animated version (4 more)
Jafar is dull and monotone
It was like watching a stage play rather than a movie
The new song is forgettable
The CGI is not that good
Quite useless but not bad
The original Aladdin was the first movie I watched in theater (or at least the one that I have memory). It was magical, mysterious and hilarious.
This one is just ok. In all honesty it kind of represent my thought with all these live action Disney movie remakes: what's the point? I mean I know they will bring lots of money to them but for the viewer there is nothing special.
The point of a remake for me is to bring an old product to a new generation, adding new elements while still maintaining the spirit. If it is just a carbon copy with little to new changes and overall nothing to add to the conversation to me they fail.
This new Aladdin is basically the same movie with worse characters and dull moments. I actually liked Will Smith as the Genie. I was expecting to cringe at most of his scene but in all honesty he does really a good job. He is different from Robin Williams for obvious reason but he manage to give his own spin and it works for what it is, so much so that I was eager to see more of him.
The worst is definitely Jafar. I don't know if it's a casting mistake but he was so monotone, dull, boring. The original have different ranges of emotions, being low key in some point to then goes over the top and flamboyant. The new Jafar instead is just dull.
It is not an awful movie and it is still watchable, probably you might even enjoy it. However the animated version has so much energy! It's vibrant, colorful, funny and in all honesty it still perfectly holds up! If you are curious to see the same movie with worst character then feel free to see it, otherwise just stick to the original.
This one is just ok. In all honesty it kind of represent my thought with all these live action Disney movie remakes: what's the point? I mean I know they will bring lots of money to them but for the viewer there is nothing special.
The point of a remake for me is to bring an old product to a new generation, adding new elements while still maintaining the spirit. If it is just a carbon copy with little to new changes and overall nothing to add to the conversation to me they fail.
This new Aladdin is basically the same movie with worse characters and dull moments. I actually liked Will Smith as the Genie. I was expecting to cringe at most of his scene but in all honesty he does really a good job. He is different from Robin Williams for obvious reason but he manage to give his own spin and it works for what it is, so much so that I was eager to see more of him.
The worst is definitely Jafar. I don't know if it's a casting mistake but he was so monotone, dull, boring. The original have different ranges of emotions, being low key in some point to then goes over the top and flamboyant. The new Jafar instead is just dull.
It is not an awful movie and it is still watchable, probably you might even enjoy it. However the animated version has so much energy! It's vibrant, colorful, funny and in all honesty it still perfectly holds up! If you are curious to see the same movie with worst character then feel free to see it, otherwise just stick to the original.
8-bit Adventure Anthology: Volume I
Video Game Watch
8-bit Adventure Anthology is a compilation featuring faithful remakes of three of the best 8-bit...
action adventure
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Predictably Gruesome, But Entertaining
Child's Play is a 2019 slasher/horror movie directed by Lars Klevberg and written by Tyler Burton Smith. It was produced by Orion Pictures, KatzSmith Productions, and BRON Creative and distributed by United Artists Releasing. The film stars Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, Brian Tyree Henry, and Mark Hamill.
A revolutionary line of high-tech dolls, designed to be life-long companions to their owners, called Buddi, is launched by the Kaslan Corporation. Buddi dolls learn from their surroundings and act accordingly by connecting and operating other Kaslan products making it a success with children world wide. Before committing suicide after being fired at a Buddi assembly plant in Vietnam, an employee disables all of the doll's safety protocols on the doll he is assembling. In Chicago, Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza), a retail clerk, encourages her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), to make new friends as she prepares for his upcoming birthday. She blackmails her boss to procure a Buddi doll as an early birthday gift but once Andy activates it, the doll begins to display violent tendencies.
This movie was pretty good, and that goes for remakes/reboots. I think everyone has seen a bad Chucky movie and this is not one. I really didn't like the redesign or new look of the Chucky doll but it grew on me as the movie progressed. Also I guess I'm just so used to his voice being different, that I also didn't think Mark Hamill's voice fit either, until the movie progressed further. I agree with certain critics that complained about the inconsistent tone, and how it lacked the principal's perverse originality. It definitely didn't have the me vibe of the original but I like how it made it, its own thing. But I think this was a very successful remake. The acting from Gabriel Bateman was really good and I wound up really liking Mark Hamill's performance as well. He actually made me feel sorry for the doll. I give this movie a 7/10. And I say you should definitely check it out, especially if you are a fan of the Child's Play movies.
A revolutionary line of high-tech dolls, designed to be life-long companions to their owners, called Buddi, is launched by the Kaslan Corporation. Buddi dolls learn from their surroundings and act accordingly by connecting and operating other Kaslan products making it a success with children world wide. Before committing suicide after being fired at a Buddi assembly plant in Vietnam, an employee disables all of the doll's safety protocols on the doll he is assembling. In Chicago, Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza), a retail clerk, encourages her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), to make new friends as she prepares for his upcoming birthday. She blackmails her boss to procure a Buddi doll as an early birthday gift but once Andy activates it, the doll begins to display violent tendencies.
This movie was pretty good, and that goes for remakes/reboots. I think everyone has seen a bad Chucky movie and this is not one. I really didn't like the redesign or new look of the Chucky doll but it grew on me as the movie progressed. Also I guess I'm just so used to his voice being different, that I also didn't think Mark Hamill's voice fit either, until the movie progressed further. I agree with certain critics that complained about the inconsistent tone, and how it lacked the principal's perverse originality. It definitely didn't have the me vibe of the original but I like how it made it, its own thing. But I think this was a very successful remake. The acting from Gabriel Bateman was really good and I wound up really liking Mark Hamill's performance as well. He actually made me feel sorry for the doll. I give this movie a 7/10. And I say you should definitely check it out, especially if you are a fan of the Child's Play movies.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
An interesting experiment, to be sure - but one which only ends up being adequate. A fragmented, weird, messy experience (which certainly isn't always bad) but compared to today's shit throwaway remakes that we see every other week now this seems much more nuanced than we gave it credit for, in retrospect. Still feels like two totally different movies - first you have the sort of scuffed backstory stuff which, yes, I agree does devalue the mystery of this character a bit but it's peppered graciously with Zombie's greasy, raunchy flavor and is the most genuinely brutal part of the film in comparison to the CliffNotes remake portion which seems a lot more confusingly sterile, frustratingly cutting away from most of the stabs and pulling out knives with no blood on them - stuff like that. Perhaps I'm spoiled by the likes of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭'𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 but like many I wish this stuck with being a Rob Zombie movie rather than just doing an express retread of the original where all the characters are grating jerkwads who hate each other. Often not a bad emulation and it's sort of interesting seeing these once formal characters now going around saying harmful expletives all the time - it's still suitably grimy after all but the new additions seem senseless while the returning characters/aspects are given nothing to do. The saving grace of this back portion is Tyler Mane's hulking behemoth Myers - just eating bullets, stabs, and blunt trauma one after the other as if someone's flicking spitballs at him while delivering effortless violence in his wake. And come on that revamped mask is so damn cool. In these moments it's clear that nobody roots for the bad guy(s) and revels in the abject misfortune of the innocent quite like Zombie - and that his movies are at their best when they focus acutely on the sort of writhes, convulsions, and pleads the human body does when it's faced with inhuman destruction by the hands of those who live by it. I still have no idea why they gave him this franchise though when his trailer park spectacle aesthetic is practically *gift-wrapped* for the 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘸 series.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated I'll Give You the Sun in Books
Jun 24, 2019
Read the original review: https://bookmarkedreading.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/book-review-ill-give-you-the-sun/
(Self-portrait: Book Remakes Girl)
Oh my Clark Gable. I'll Give You the Sun is simply amazing. It's a piece or artwork in itself, a definite new favourite of mine.
Alternating between twins Noah and Jude, I'll Give You the Sun is two alternating stories that twist together in ways so unexpected and so perfect that you'll undoubtedly want to read to the end without putting the book down. The Invisible Museum of Noah, aged 13 to 14, and The History of Luck, 16-year-old's Jude's story, are amazing on their own, but then they start to fit together so tremendously, and every little thing makes so much sense... I can't describe how amazing I found this book.
Jude and Noah were close; Noah was always painting, inside his head and out, and Jude was out being a badass daredevil, and building her flying women in the sand. But a horrific accident involving their mother sends them both tumbling, and the relationship between them is ruined.
But although all hope seems lost, the now-boycotting Jude finds the answer in such an unexpected way and suddenly everything falls back into place.
And Noah, after having his heart ripped out by his own actions, has to decide between telling the truth about his mother or keeping her secrets hidden beneath lies.
I love the style and layout of this book. The cover alone is wonderful, but the pages themselves are all so unique and interesting, I loved it at soon as I turned to the first page. It's not too busy or intricate, just simple little doodles and such giving each page a bit of character. And every cover I've seen is nice and minimalistic too. (If you want to look the book up and see the over editions and covers you can look at it on Goodreads.)
A story of family struggles, individual troubles, love and heartbreak, I'll Give You the Sun is simply beautiful. I'm dying to read it again, even after finishing it just ten minutes ago! A full 5 stars for this gorgeous book.
(Self-portrait: Book Remakes Girl)
Oh my Clark Gable. I'll Give You the Sun is simply amazing. It's a piece or artwork in itself, a definite new favourite of mine.
Alternating between twins Noah and Jude, I'll Give You the Sun is two alternating stories that twist together in ways so unexpected and so perfect that you'll undoubtedly want to read to the end without putting the book down. The Invisible Museum of Noah, aged 13 to 14, and The History of Luck, 16-year-old's Jude's story, are amazing on their own, but then they start to fit together so tremendously, and every little thing makes so much sense... I can't describe how amazing I found this book.
Jude and Noah were close; Noah was always painting, inside his head and out, and Jude was out being a badass daredevil, and building her flying women in the sand. But a horrific accident involving their mother sends them both tumbling, and the relationship between them is ruined.
But although all hope seems lost, the now-boycotting Jude finds the answer in such an unexpected way and suddenly everything falls back into place.
And Noah, after having his heart ripped out by his own actions, has to decide between telling the truth about his mother or keeping her secrets hidden beneath lies.
I love the style and layout of this book. The cover alone is wonderful, but the pages themselves are all so unique and interesting, I loved it at soon as I turned to the first page. It's not too busy or intricate, just simple little doodles and such giving each page a bit of character. And every cover I've seen is nice and minimalistic too. (If you want to look the book up and see the over editions and covers you can look at it on Goodreads.)
A story of family struggles, individual troubles, love and heartbreak, I'll Give You the Sun is simply beautiful. I'm dying to read it again, even after finishing it just ten minutes ago! A full 5 stars for this gorgeous book.