Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
A great take on a vampire film
I can't believe I've never seen this film before. Not only do I love vampire films, I also have a soft spot for Sam Neill and Ethan Hawke, so I should've watched this a long time ago!
This is a very refreshing and original take on a vampire film. It's not an idea I've seen before, and it works really well. The background to the story and vampires is flashed over so quickly during the opening scenes and credits, and at a 1hr40 runtime this film really doesn't mess around. The vampire world looks great and I loved the grayscale and darker camera shots whenever the vampires were on screen, it made a stark contrast to the scenes set in daylight. This is such a different version of vampires to what we're used to and there are parts of this where you almost feel sorry for them.
Ethan Hawke is wonderful as Ed, and Sam Neill is deliciously wicked as he has been in other films, despite the fact I cant stop seeing him as Alan Grant! I think Willem Dafoe was a tad underused thought. The best thing I loved about this film was the gore and physical effects. It's an 18 for a reason and I loved all of the blood and guts. Admittedly some of the gore seemed a little over the top and ridiculous towards the end, but this just made it all the more hilariously enjoyable.
This film isn't perfect. I think some of the CGI is dodgy in parts which is a shame as the rest of the effects are rather good. And the sub plot about Sam Neill's daughter seemed a little flimsy. But aside from this, I think Daybreakers is a great underrated vampire film with a unique story, that seems to have gone without the recognition it deserves.
This is a very refreshing and original take on a vampire film. It's not an idea I've seen before, and it works really well. The background to the story and vampires is flashed over so quickly during the opening scenes and credits, and at a 1hr40 runtime this film really doesn't mess around. The vampire world looks great and I loved the grayscale and darker camera shots whenever the vampires were on screen, it made a stark contrast to the scenes set in daylight. This is such a different version of vampires to what we're used to and there are parts of this where you almost feel sorry for them.
Ethan Hawke is wonderful as Ed, and Sam Neill is deliciously wicked as he has been in other films, despite the fact I cant stop seeing him as Alan Grant! I think Willem Dafoe was a tad underused thought. The best thing I loved about this film was the gore and physical effects. It's an 18 for a reason and I loved all of the blood and guts. Admittedly some of the gore seemed a little over the top and ridiculous towards the end, but this just made it all the more hilariously enjoyable.
This film isn't perfect. I think some of the CGI is dodgy in parts which is a shame as the rest of the effects are rather good. And the sub plot about Sam Neill's daughter seemed a little flimsy. But aside from this, I think Daybreakers is a great underrated vampire film with a unique story, that seems to have gone without the recognition it deserves.
Film and stuff (30 KP) rated Backtrack (2015) in Movies
May 15, 2019 (Updated May 15, 2019)
Fails to deliver
Director: Michael Petroni
Writer: Michael Petroni
Stars: Adrien Brody, Jenni Baird, Bruce Spence and Sam Neill
What's it about?
Peter Bower is a Psychiatrist who discovers all of his clients are ghosts that died in a train accident that he was witness to as a child. Whilst revisiting his home town where the incident took place, he begins to discover the truth behind the accident with the help of the victims spirits
Is it scary?
Nah. Tension fails to really build and the jump scares are very predictable
Does it have any redeeming features?
Well acted and a mildly gripping ending
.
How does it compare to other horrors?
It makes the sins by being neither entertaining or so bad that it's funny
Writer: Michael Petroni
Stars: Adrien Brody, Jenni Baird, Bruce Spence and Sam Neill
What's it about?
Peter Bower is a Psychiatrist who discovers all of his clients are ghosts that died in a train accident that he was witness to as a child. Whilst revisiting his home town where the incident took place, he begins to discover the truth behind the accident with the help of the victims spirits
Is it scary?
Nah. Tension fails to really build and the jump scares are very predictable
Does it have any redeeming features?
Well acted and a mildly gripping ending
.
How does it compare to other horrors?
It makes the sins by being neither entertaining or so bad that it's funny
The Piano (1993)
8.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
Set in 1851, a mute Scottish woman arrives in colonial New Zealand for an arranged marriage, with...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Jurassic Park III (2001) in Movies
May 24, 2019
This is where the sequels really start coming off the rails
The third Jurassic Park movie is pretty poor. For multiple reasons.
The main reason has to be the script - it has to be - because the acting talent is not bad by any means.
Sam Neill, William H. Macy, Tea Leoni - all great actors in my opinion.
But it's hard to connect with any of them throughout the run time (I swear I hear her shouting "ERIC" in my sleep sometimes)
A lot (not all) of the practical dinosaurs have been replaced with shoddy CGI, and to top it all off, the movie just ends. Very suddenly! And I can't figure out why... It's a good deal shorter in run time than the first two. Maybe Joe Johnston just got bored.
On a final note, is a velociraptor talking a low point for the franchise? Or hilariously great? You decide (ALAN)
The main reason has to be the script - it has to be - because the acting talent is not bad by any means.
Sam Neill, William H. Macy, Tea Leoni - all great actors in my opinion.
But it's hard to connect with any of them throughout the run time (I swear I hear her shouting "ERIC" in my sleep sometimes)
A lot (not all) of the practical dinosaurs have been replaced with shoddy CGI, and to top it all off, the movie just ends. Very suddenly! And I can't figure out why... It's a good deal shorter in run time than the first two. Maybe Joe Johnston just got bored.
On a final note, is a velociraptor talking a low point for the franchise? Or hilariously great? You decide (ALAN)
Peaky Blinders - Season 2
7.5
Rate It
TV Season Watch
Britain is a mixture of despair and hedonism in 1919 in the aftermath of the Great War. Returning...
Blackbird (2019)
Movie
A terminally ill mother (Susan Sarandon) invites her family to their country house for one final...
ClareR (5726 KP) rated Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
I was channel surfing (or hopping?) and chanced upon this film, and I consider myself to be very fortunate that I did. It’s a gloriously quirky, funny film of a foster child running off (by accident, I think) with his foster father.
His foster mother dies suddenly, and he knows that he’ll be put back in to a system that doesn’t care for him, so he runs away into the New Zealand bush/ forests, where his foster father finds him. Social Services start a manhunt for them, under the pretext that they know what’s best for him. They haven’t been great with him in the past - he has earned himself a reputation of a troubled child. Something which his foster mother seems to have loved out of him. She is a lovely character. As is the gloriously grumpy Sam Neill.
No description I can write can give this film its true credit - you’ll just have to watch it for yourself. It’s fantastic.
His foster mother dies suddenly, and he knows that he’ll be put back in to a system that doesn’t care for him, so he runs away into the New Zealand bush/ forests, where his foster father finds him. Social Services start a manhunt for them, under the pretext that they know what’s best for him. They haven’t been great with him in the past - he has earned himself a reputation of a troubled child. Something which his foster mother seems to have loved out of him. She is a lovely character. As is the gloriously grumpy Sam Neill.
No description I can write can give this film its true credit - you’ll just have to watch it for yourself. It’s fantastic.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
In the not too distant future, the majority of the population are vampires and the world has been modified to adjust to the daylight. Remaining humans are "farmed" for blood, but the supply is running thin and the human race is on the verge of extinction. Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a hematologist that works at Bromley Marks, the empire of Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), and is put in charge of finding a blood substitute, but has come up empty handed up until this point. Dalton is convinced that the vampire race has its work cut out for them with the blood supply being so low. He runs into a small group of humans one night at work and is eventually introduced to Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a former vampire who has something better than a blood substitute; a cure. Now Dalton finds himself risking everything on an experimental treatment that could be the key to saving mankind.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Event Horizon (1997) in Movies
Dec 17, 2018
A classic
Pretty much everyone I know within my similar generation absolutely loves this film, even one me and my brother both agree on, which is unusual.
This is still one of the best and scariest sci-fi horror films I’ve seen since this was originally released. It’s dark, ominous and full of blood and gore. The effects at the time were very good, although admittedly they haven’t aged as well watching it back now and some of the CGI especially looks a bit dodgy. It has a fantastic cast, it’s one of my all time favourite Sam Neill films and you can’t really go wrong with Jason Isaacs and Sean Pertwee either. The plot is fairly straight forward but very creepy, and this will always be the film that spawned the pencil through paper wormhole explanation (sorry Interstellar).
This film isn’t perfect by any means and has sadly not aged as well as it should, but for me it’s still one of my favourites and a true classic sci-fi horror, not far off the likes of Alien etc.
This is still one of the best and scariest sci-fi horror films I’ve seen since this was originally released. It’s dark, ominous and full of blood and gore. The effects at the time were very good, although admittedly they haven’t aged as well watching it back now and some of the CGI especially looks a bit dodgy. It has a fantastic cast, it’s one of my all time favourite Sam Neill films and you can’t really go wrong with Jason Isaacs and Sean Pertwee either. The plot is fairly straight forward but very creepy, and this will always be the film that spawned the pencil through paper wormhole explanation (sorry Interstellar).
This film isn’t perfect by any means and has sadly not aged as well as it should, but for me it’s still one of my favourites and a true classic sci-fi horror, not far off the likes of Alien etc.
David McK (3425 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Aug 14, 2022
Insect park?
Jurassic Park (the original) is a masterpiece of cinema.
Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World has it's moments (the raptors in the long grass), but also has the annoying-kid-doing-gymnastics-while-a-Raptor-watches.
Jurassic Park 3 takes some scenes from the original novel (most noticeably the aviary) that were left out of the previous films, but also has the stupid ringing phone that a dinosaur has swallowed that remind the viewer too much (and not in a good way) of Peter Pan and Captain Hook crocodile.
Jurassic World follows the same format as Jurassic Park, except goes larger. It's not a bad movie.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom goes in a completely different direction, going the haunted house route in the second half, and ends with the dinosaurs released on the mainland.
Which is where Jurassic World: Dominion picks up, roughly four years on from the ending of Fallen Kingdom. Lots have been made of the fact that this also reunites the original cast - Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum - alongside the newer duo of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The problem, however, is that more is quite often less, which I found to be the case here - plenty of action (and dinosaurs), yes, but also, well, just missing something :(
Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World has it's moments (the raptors in the long grass), but also has the annoying-kid-doing-gymnastics-while-a-Raptor-watches.
Jurassic Park 3 takes some scenes from the original novel (most noticeably the aviary) that were left out of the previous films, but also has the stupid ringing phone that a dinosaur has swallowed that remind the viewer too much (and not in a good way) of Peter Pan and Captain Hook crocodile.
Jurassic World follows the same format as Jurassic Park, except goes larger. It's not a bad movie.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom goes in a completely different direction, going the haunted house route in the second half, and ends with the dinosaurs released on the mainland.
Which is where Jurassic World: Dominion picks up, roughly four years on from the ending of Fallen Kingdom. Lots have been made of the fact that this also reunites the original cast - Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum - alongside the newer duo of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The problem, however, is that more is quite often less, which I found to be the case here - plenty of action (and dinosaurs), yes, but also, well, just missing something :(