Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1202 KP) rated I've Got You in Books
Jul 3, 2019
a stunning follow up!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is sort of the second book in the set, Let Me Show You is the first, and you really should read that one, I think, to give you the full picture of what Scott did to Carter in that book, and why he feels so bad about himself in this one. Not totally NECESSARY, but I think it would help a great deal.
Scott was awful to Carter, and then came out to him, which made what Scott did all the worse. When Scott kisses Davis, Tanner’s best friend, at Carter and Tanner’s party, Scott runs. It takes a great deal of Carter to bring Scott out of himself. Davis is profoundly affected by that kiss, and he knows what Scott did to Carter was bad, but when Davis sees Scott, really SEES deep into his eyes, Davis knows Scott is desperately unhappy with his lot. But can the newly outed vet be happy with the single dad? Can he be happy, at ALL?
Like I said, I think it would help a great deal to read Carter and Tanner’s book before this one. If only to give you the full picture of what Scott did to Carter, and why Tanner is reluctant to forgive Scott, even if Carter does, and just why Scott hates himself so much. You need that bigger picture, I think. Just my personal opinion, is all.
Scott is hurting. He knows what he did was wrong, and the fact that Carter has taken it upon himself to become Scott’s best friend shocks him but gives him hope. He doesn’t know if he will ever be truly happy with himself for that, but he has to try. Meeting Davis at Carter and Tanner’s party was a bit of a revelation. He doesn’t know why he kissed Davis, but he liked it, a lot. Getting to know Davis seems like a good idea, but a deeply scary one for Scott, especially since Davis has a baby daughter.
Davis is lovely! I loved his patience with Scott, he knows Scott is hurting, and he knows Scott is newly out, so he understands explaining stuff is hard work, but very quickly, very early on, Davis knows Scott is the man for him. He just has to bide his time while Scott gets himself sorted. When Scott comes to work in Davis’ coffee shop, it gives Davis the ideal opportunity to get close to Scott. And when Scott meets Libby?? Davis is smitten, deeply!
There is, for Scott, a great deal of soul-searching in this book. Davis is an open book here and Scott is not. It takes time for Scott to come out of himself, and for the relationship between Davis and Scott to develop and I loved that. In Carter and Tanner’s review, I said I loved being made to wait for the main event but here? I wasn’t even sure we would GET the main event! It’s a close thing, I tell ya. But it’s right and proper that these two take their time, and get to know each other properly, I think.
It has some sexy time, some deeply emotional time, some funny moments and some shocking ones. Both Davis and Scott have their say, in the first person. Both voices are very different, and each change is clearly headed at the beginning of a chapter.
It also has some very homophobic comments from a shocking source, where you don’t expect them, but once you know, you understand why Scott was in a bad place before.
We leave this little town, with Scott and Davis, and Carter and Tanner happily settling down to their new lives together. We also get to meet Scott’s sister. I’d like her to be happy too. She had it tough for a long time, and reconnecting with Scott gives her the courage to do something about her life. She deserves the kind of happiness her brother has found, too, please Ms Seymour!
Not quite as warm and fuzzies and too stinking cute as Let Me Some You, but it’s a very close thing! Still. . .
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is sort of the second book in the set, Let Me Show You is the first, and you really should read that one, I think, to give you the full picture of what Scott did to Carter in that book, and why he feels so bad about himself in this one. Not totally NECESSARY, but I think it would help a great deal.
Scott was awful to Carter, and then came out to him, which made what Scott did all the worse. When Scott kisses Davis, Tanner’s best friend, at Carter and Tanner’s party, Scott runs. It takes a great deal of Carter to bring Scott out of himself. Davis is profoundly affected by that kiss, and he knows what Scott did to Carter was bad, but when Davis sees Scott, really SEES deep into his eyes, Davis knows Scott is desperately unhappy with his lot. But can the newly outed vet be happy with the single dad? Can he be happy, at ALL?
Like I said, I think it would help a great deal to read Carter and Tanner’s book before this one. If only to give you the full picture of what Scott did to Carter, and why Tanner is reluctant to forgive Scott, even if Carter does, and just why Scott hates himself so much. You need that bigger picture, I think. Just my personal opinion, is all.
Scott is hurting. He knows what he did was wrong, and the fact that Carter has taken it upon himself to become Scott’s best friend shocks him but gives him hope. He doesn’t know if he will ever be truly happy with himself for that, but he has to try. Meeting Davis at Carter and Tanner’s party was a bit of a revelation. He doesn’t know why he kissed Davis, but he liked it, a lot. Getting to know Davis seems like a good idea, but a deeply scary one for Scott, especially since Davis has a baby daughter.
Davis is lovely! I loved his patience with Scott, he knows Scott is hurting, and he knows Scott is newly out, so he understands explaining stuff is hard work, but very quickly, very early on, Davis knows Scott is the man for him. He just has to bide his time while Scott gets himself sorted. When Scott comes to work in Davis’ coffee shop, it gives Davis the ideal opportunity to get close to Scott. And when Scott meets Libby?? Davis is smitten, deeply!
There is, for Scott, a great deal of soul-searching in this book. Davis is an open book here and Scott is not. It takes time for Scott to come out of himself, and for the relationship between Davis and Scott to develop and I loved that. In Carter and Tanner’s review, I said I loved being made to wait for the main event but here? I wasn’t even sure we would GET the main event! It’s a close thing, I tell ya. But it’s right and proper that these two take their time, and get to know each other properly, I think.
It has some sexy time, some deeply emotional time, some funny moments and some shocking ones. Both Davis and Scott have their say, in the first person. Both voices are very different, and each change is clearly headed at the beginning of a chapter.
It also has some very homophobic comments from a shocking source, where you don’t expect them, but once you know, you understand why Scott was in a bad place before.
We leave this little town, with Scott and Davis, and Carter and Tanner happily settling down to their new lives together. We also get to meet Scott’s sister. I’d like her to be happy too. She had it tough for a long time, and reconnecting with Scott gives her the courage to do something about her life. She deserves the kind of happiness her brother has found, too, please Ms Seymour!
Not quite as warm and fuzzies and too stinking cute as Let Me Some You, but it’s a very close thing! Still. . .
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dark Crimes (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
great many of us film aficionados have, at one time or another, thought that they’ve seen so many films from so many different genres or written by so many ‘messed up’ writers or directed by so many warped minds that have simply ‘walked off the map’ that nothing and I mean absolutely nothing could shock us. We think we’ve ‘seen everything’ or have been ‘prepared’ for anything shocking that filmmakers might throw our way. As today’s film for your consideration will demonstrate, even folks like ‘us’ can be caught off guard by the occasional ‘curve ball’ by a writer, director, or actor/actress we’ve become acquainted with through their work over the years. I can say this much before we go any further … I have never seen nor did I ever imagine seeing Jim Carrey in a film like this.
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Bad Frank (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
I love it when a movie can come completely out of nowhere and surprise this humble reviewer. Bad Frank is exactly that, A movie that on paper looks and sounds like most other Kidnap Revenge thrillers you may have seen over the years. But let me tell you that Bad Frank is far from some of the copy and paste garbage out there.
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Twenty-six years ago, “Fright Night” premiered in theaters and went on to become a fondly remembered title amongst horror fans. The movie cleverly combined horror and humor to create a fresh take on the vampire and teen horror genres which had started to grow stale. While the movie spawned a largely forgettable direct to video sequel, the original film has remained popular over the years. So, when I first heard that they were planning on remaking the film I was skeptical as I felt it would be very difficult to match the original film.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 3, 2020)
The introduction of funny Freddy (2 more)
Welcome to primetime, bitch!
Death Scene's
Welcome to primetime, bitch!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors- is a excellent movie, coming off the disappointed Freedy's Revenge, Dream Warriors goes back to the oringal formula, Scary, twisted, dramatic and excellent deaths. Dream Warriors adds more like taking place psychiatric ward, a excellent line that was on the spot, "Welcome to primetime, bitch!". Also Heather Langenkamp and John Saxton return. Also you new charcters that will return in later sequels like Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. A great cast of charcters, a great story and also introduces Freddy's mom and her back story and adds more to Freddy's back story.
Lets talk more: production and deaths.
Production:
Craven's very first concept for the film was to have Freddy Krueger invade the real world: Krueger would haunt the actors filming a new Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. New Line Cinema rejected the metacinematic idea, but years later, Craven's concept was brought to the screen in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
Before it was decided what script would be used for the film's story, both John Saxon and Robert Englund wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film; in Saxon's script called How the Nightmare on Elm Street All Began, which would have been a prequel story, Freddy would ultimately turn out to have been innocent, or at least set up for the murders by Charles Manson, who along with his followers would have been the main culprit of the murders; Freddy would be forced by the mob of angry parents to make a confession of the crimes, which would enrage them further. After they lynch Freddy, he comes back to avenge his wrongful death by targeting the parent's children.
In Englund's treatment called Freddy's Funhouse, the protagonist would have been Tina Gray's older sister, who would have been in college by the time Tina was murdered, and ends up coming back to Springwood to investigate how she died. In the script, Freddy had claimed the 1428 Elm Street house for his own in the dreamworld, setting up booby traps like Nancy did against him.
The death scenes: I love the death scene's in this film. Their are both memorable and excellent and probley my favorite out of all the franchise. You have Phillip's death: Veins pulled out/manipulated into falling off high ledge by Krueger, Jennifer's death: Head smashed into TV screen, Taryn death: Leg slashed with bladed glove, massive amounts of heroin injected into veins and Freddy saying "let's get high", William's death: Lifted, chest impaled with bladed glove and Freddy saying " Sorry kid, but I don't believe in fairy tales", Donald's death: Thrown/impaled through back on car's tail fin by a skeleton verison of krueger and Nancy's death: Stomach impaled twice/gutted with bladed glove/bled out, in dream world cause she sees her dad but its krueger. Also you have the Freddy worm that attacks Kristen.
The plot: During a hallucinatory incident, young Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has her wrists slashed by dream-stalking monster Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Her mother, mistaking the wounds for a suicide attempt, sends Kristen to a psychiatric ward, where she joins a group of similarly troubled teens. One of the doctors there is Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had battled Freddy some years before. Nancy senses a potential in Kristen to rid the world of Freddy once and for all.
Dream Warriors: is a return to the oringal formula, and adds more. Adds memorable lines, better deaths, intoduction of comedy side of Freddy and above all a excellent movie.
The ending is sad cause Nancy and John doe die by freedy but it ends their story for now and starts a new story with Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. Its a percent, but sad ending. Ending the oringal maim charcters arc/story, while senting up a new trio of charcters.
Also you can't forget about that excellent theme song, "Dream Warrors" by Dokken.
Lets talk more: production and deaths.
Production:
Craven's very first concept for the film was to have Freddy Krueger invade the real world: Krueger would haunt the actors filming a new Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. New Line Cinema rejected the metacinematic idea, but years later, Craven's concept was brought to the screen in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
Before it was decided what script would be used for the film's story, both John Saxon and Robert Englund wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film; in Saxon's script called How the Nightmare on Elm Street All Began, which would have been a prequel story, Freddy would ultimately turn out to have been innocent, or at least set up for the murders by Charles Manson, who along with his followers would have been the main culprit of the murders; Freddy would be forced by the mob of angry parents to make a confession of the crimes, which would enrage them further. After they lynch Freddy, he comes back to avenge his wrongful death by targeting the parent's children.
In Englund's treatment called Freddy's Funhouse, the protagonist would have been Tina Gray's older sister, who would have been in college by the time Tina was murdered, and ends up coming back to Springwood to investigate how she died. In the script, Freddy had claimed the 1428 Elm Street house for his own in the dreamworld, setting up booby traps like Nancy did against him.
The death scenes: I love the death scene's in this film. Their are both memorable and excellent and probley my favorite out of all the franchise. You have Phillip's death: Veins pulled out/manipulated into falling off high ledge by Krueger, Jennifer's death: Head smashed into TV screen, Taryn death: Leg slashed with bladed glove, massive amounts of heroin injected into veins and Freddy saying "let's get high", William's death: Lifted, chest impaled with bladed glove and Freddy saying " Sorry kid, but I don't believe in fairy tales", Donald's death: Thrown/impaled through back on car's tail fin by a skeleton verison of krueger and Nancy's death: Stomach impaled twice/gutted with bladed glove/bled out, in dream world cause she sees her dad but its krueger. Also you have the Freddy worm that attacks Kristen.
The plot: During a hallucinatory incident, young Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has her wrists slashed by dream-stalking monster Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Her mother, mistaking the wounds for a suicide attempt, sends Kristen to a psychiatric ward, where she joins a group of similarly troubled teens. One of the doctors there is Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had battled Freddy some years before. Nancy senses a potential in Kristen to rid the world of Freddy once and for all.
Dream Warriors: is a return to the oringal formula, and adds more. Adds memorable lines, better deaths, intoduction of comedy side of Freddy and above all a excellent movie.
The ending is sad cause Nancy and John doe die by freedy but it ends their story for now and starts a new story with Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. Its a percent, but sad ending. Ending the oringal maim charcters arc/story, while senting up a new trio of charcters.
Also you can't forget about that excellent theme song, "Dream Warrors" by Dokken.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Alone (2020) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020
Fails To Live Up To It's Clone #Alive, Even Though It Was Made First (5/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Alone is a 2020 Survival/Horror movie directed by Johnny Martin and written by Matt Naylor. It was produced by Grindstone Entertainment Group and HIG Productions and distributed by Lionsgate. Producers who worked on the film include Rabih Aridi, Anne Jordan, and Johnny Martin. The movie stars Tyler Posey, Summer Spiro and Donald Sutherland.
Aiden (Tyler Posey) who lives alone in an apartment complex, learns of a mysterious rapidly-spreading disease that's causing its victims to attack and eat uninfected people. From his balcony, he can see his neighbors fleeing and others attacking one another. The news reports for people to hide and stay inside so he barricades himself inside his apartment and starts rationing food. His complex is overrun by those that are infected, and with the world falling apart into chaos, he is left completely alone fighting for his life and dealing with complete isolation.
This movie got me so confused in the beginning and not because it was confusing but because it was so similar to #Alive. I mean everything was happening the same in the movie, so much so that I was starting to believe they were made by the same company or something. I looked it up and what I found was that Alone was actually made before it's Korean counterpart #Alive and that #Alive was based off of the same script for Alone. That being said, I would have to say that #Alive is the better film. Alone is not a bad zombie film but having seen #Alive first, Alone fails to live up to it's Korean rival. There were some pretty cool scenes and the movie didn't lack action although it is a little slow paced here and there but just seemed lacking on a couple of fronts. I want to say more but I'm going to save it for the spoiler section. As is I give this movie a 5/10. It's a decent movie and good zombie movie but didn't do anything to go above and beyond. Felt like your average zombie film.
Spoiler Section Review:
So this movie really freaked me out because of how everything plot wise was happening exactly like the movie #Alive. Like how first thing in the movie he starts seeing neighbors going berserk and attacking people, then how he hears the report on the news and how a neighbor barges into his apartment to escape the infected on his floor. It even unfolds the same way from there that the guy is bitten and infected already and how Aiden (Tyler Posey) goes to the kitchen for a knife and kicks the guy out of his apartment as he is transforming into a zombie. So many things happen the exact same from the movie #Alive like how he runs out of food and water, how he tries to kill himself and how he finds out that there is another survivor in the complex which is a girl (Summer Spiro) who he starts communicating with and helps him mentally from going stir crazy. The similarities made this movie way more predictable then normal but I was still going along for the ride because it was interesting enough for a first time watch but I don't feel there is really anything to watch this movie a second time for. Aiden's personality and character were pretty dull and didn't make you empathize with him much. Summer Spiro as Eva was more charming but also didn't have alot to get you invested in her character. The zombies or infected were pretty horrible too with most looking like they were just people who twitched and ran around and less like actual zombies. Also I have a hang up on zombies that don't eat people but look like they just want to spread a disease/virus and I felt like for some of them in this movie it looked liked they weren't really eating their victims. This movie wasn't as scary or cool as #Alive but like I said it's not terrible but suffers from a lot of things that could have been done different. I gave this movie a 5/10.
Aiden (Tyler Posey) who lives alone in an apartment complex, learns of a mysterious rapidly-spreading disease that's causing its victims to attack and eat uninfected people. From his balcony, he can see his neighbors fleeing and others attacking one another. The news reports for people to hide and stay inside so he barricades himself inside his apartment and starts rationing food. His complex is overrun by those that are infected, and with the world falling apart into chaos, he is left completely alone fighting for his life and dealing with complete isolation.
This movie got me so confused in the beginning and not because it was confusing but because it was so similar to #Alive. I mean everything was happening the same in the movie, so much so that I was starting to believe they were made by the same company or something. I looked it up and what I found was that Alone was actually made before it's Korean counterpart #Alive and that #Alive was based off of the same script for Alone. That being said, I would have to say that #Alive is the better film. Alone is not a bad zombie film but having seen #Alive first, Alone fails to live up to it's Korean rival. There were some pretty cool scenes and the movie didn't lack action although it is a little slow paced here and there but just seemed lacking on a couple of fronts. I want to say more but I'm going to save it for the spoiler section. As is I give this movie a 5/10. It's a decent movie and good zombie movie but didn't do anything to go above and beyond. Felt like your average zombie film.
Spoiler Section Review:
So this movie really freaked me out because of how everything plot wise was happening exactly like the movie #Alive. Like how first thing in the movie he starts seeing neighbors going berserk and attacking people, then how he hears the report on the news and how a neighbor barges into his apartment to escape the infected on his floor. It even unfolds the same way from there that the guy is bitten and infected already and how Aiden (Tyler Posey) goes to the kitchen for a knife and kicks the guy out of his apartment as he is transforming into a zombie. So many things happen the exact same from the movie #Alive like how he runs out of food and water, how he tries to kill himself and how he finds out that there is another survivor in the complex which is a girl (Summer Spiro) who he starts communicating with and helps him mentally from going stir crazy. The similarities made this movie way more predictable then normal but I was still going along for the ride because it was interesting enough for a first time watch but I don't feel there is really anything to watch this movie a second time for. Aiden's personality and character were pretty dull and didn't make you empathize with him much. Summer Spiro as Eva was more charming but also didn't have alot to get you invested in her character. The zombies or infected were pretty horrible too with most looking like they were just people who twitched and ran around and less like actual zombies. Also I have a hang up on zombies that don't eat people but look like they just want to spread a disease/virus and I felt like for some of them in this movie it looked liked they weren't really eating their victims. This movie wasn't as scary or cool as #Alive but like I said it's not terrible but suffers from a lot of things that could have been done different. I gave this movie a 5/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Aug 8, 2020
A courtesy tap
If you were ever going to deliberately hack-off anyone in real life, Russell Crowe would probably be low on the list. A genuine bear of a man! He looks like he could kill you with a single swipe of his clawed furry hand!
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
Erika (17788 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Green Knight, based upon the poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, does the poem justice. We join our relatively pure-hearted Sir Gawain (Dev Patel) on Christmas morning, as he wakes up in what appears to be a brothel. He rushes home to his Mother (Sarita Choudhury), to change for the Christmas Day feast with the aged King (Sean Harris). Mother is left behind as Gawain goes to the feast, and conjures the appearance of the Green Knight.
Gawain agrees to the Christmas game proposed by the Green Knight, so he can be knighted himself. The game is the same as the poem, a knight gives a blow to the Green Knight, and a year from that date, the knight will visit the Green Chapel so he can return the favor.
The year passes, and Gawain sets out on his quest. Mother gives him the gift of a green sash, that will protect him as he faces the journey and the Green Knight. He sets off on his trippy journey, encountering a scavenger (Barry Keoghan) along the way and is quickly delayed in his quest and left for dead, losing his green sash. After freeing himself, he sets out on his allegory-filled quest again, encountering St. Winifred (Erin Kellyman), giants, and is led by a fox to a castle near the Green Chapel.
The castle is where the film gets back on track with the poem. The Lord (Joel Egerton) shows kindness and hospitality, while his wife (Alicia Vikander), takes the role as temptress. Alicia Vikander plays both the Lady, and the prostitute that Gawain is in love with back home. It’s understandably confusing for Gawain. The same deal is struck between the Lord and Gawain, while the Lord is away on the hunt, he will give Gawain everything he catches, while Gawain promises to give the Lord anything he receives at the castle. Gawain does not end up keeping the agreement as he’s seduced by the Lady and gets the green sash back. He escapes the castle and goes to the Green Chapel to finish the Christmas game. The end was very interesting, would Gawain choose to be courageous and maintain his honor, accepting death? Or would he be a coward, running away to be knighted, then subsequently become King? The ending was scary good.
My first thought after the film ended was that we finally got a film that did an Arthurian legend justice. I happened to be really into Arthuriana, so this film was such a treat. Though, I am left with some questions. I’m not sure which sister Mother was supposed to be. Was Mother Morgaine or Morgause? I assume it was Morgause, but Mother was a little more witchy, so maybe Morgaine? I also don’t know if in the film, the Green Knight was the Lord. The characters were played by two different actors, but the Lord is definitely supposed to be the Green Knight.
Another thing I did like is that I don’t believe they ever called the King by his name, Arthur. This was a smart move, as the story was centralized on Sir Gawain, and not about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
The one sore thumb for me was Alicia Vikander. Her accent when she was the prostitute, Essel, was horrid. I also think that character wasn’t really needed at all because she was just annoying. The whole brothel situation itself was kind of lame because Gawain was supposed to be pure and innocent. The innocence being lost at the Castle was a major part of the poem.
Dev Patel was excellent as Gawain; I was entranced by him, and he kept my attention the entire film. I know there were grumblings about his casting, but seriously, this is a fantasy story. It also is not impossible for people of a different race to be present all over Europe. There once was this empire called Rome, that encompassed a very large area, and enabled people to travel around and settle in areas.
I had been looking forward to this film since March of 2020, and it completely delivered. I hope we get more films like this, rather than the barrage of big dumb action and comic book films. I can’t wait to go see this film again!
Gawain agrees to the Christmas game proposed by the Green Knight, so he can be knighted himself. The game is the same as the poem, a knight gives a blow to the Green Knight, and a year from that date, the knight will visit the Green Chapel so he can return the favor.
The year passes, and Gawain sets out on his quest. Mother gives him the gift of a green sash, that will protect him as he faces the journey and the Green Knight. He sets off on his trippy journey, encountering a scavenger (Barry Keoghan) along the way and is quickly delayed in his quest and left for dead, losing his green sash. After freeing himself, he sets out on his allegory-filled quest again, encountering St. Winifred (Erin Kellyman), giants, and is led by a fox to a castle near the Green Chapel.
The castle is where the film gets back on track with the poem. The Lord (Joel Egerton) shows kindness and hospitality, while his wife (Alicia Vikander), takes the role as temptress. Alicia Vikander plays both the Lady, and the prostitute that Gawain is in love with back home. It’s understandably confusing for Gawain. The same deal is struck between the Lord and Gawain, while the Lord is away on the hunt, he will give Gawain everything he catches, while Gawain promises to give the Lord anything he receives at the castle. Gawain does not end up keeping the agreement as he’s seduced by the Lady and gets the green sash back. He escapes the castle and goes to the Green Chapel to finish the Christmas game. The end was very interesting, would Gawain choose to be courageous and maintain his honor, accepting death? Or would he be a coward, running away to be knighted, then subsequently become King? The ending was scary good.
My first thought after the film ended was that we finally got a film that did an Arthurian legend justice. I happened to be really into Arthuriana, so this film was such a treat. Though, I am left with some questions. I’m not sure which sister Mother was supposed to be. Was Mother Morgaine or Morgause? I assume it was Morgause, but Mother was a little more witchy, so maybe Morgaine? I also don’t know if in the film, the Green Knight was the Lord. The characters were played by two different actors, but the Lord is definitely supposed to be the Green Knight.
Another thing I did like is that I don’t believe they ever called the King by his name, Arthur. This was a smart move, as the story was centralized on Sir Gawain, and not about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
The one sore thumb for me was Alicia Vikander. Her accent when she was the prostitute, Essel, was horrid. I also think that character wasn’t really needed at all because she was just annoying. The whole brothel situation itself was kind of lame because Gawain was supposed to be pure and innocent. The innocence being lost at the Castle was a major part of the poem.
Dev Patel was excellent as Gawain; I was entranced by him, and he kept my attention the entire film. I know there were grumblings about his casting, but seriously, this is a fantasy story. It also is not impossible for people of a different race to be present all over Europe. There once was this empire called Rome, that encompassed a very large area, and enabled people to travel around and settle in areas.
I had been looking forward to this film since March of 2020, and it completely delivered. I hope we get more films like this, rather than the barrage of big dumb action and comic book films. I can’t wait to go see this film again!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“He’s waited for me; I’ve waited for him”.
A blood-soaked history.
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
The New PSYCHOLOGY
10.0
Rate It
Book
From the mind of genius to the suicide bombers of today’s news, from science to sex, understanding...
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) Jul 4, 2019