Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Apr 21, 2019
I've said it before, The Conjuring is my all time favourite scary movie. However, since the success of that first movie, there have been a number of spin off movies, in an bid to build what's now known as the 'Conjuring Universe'. These movies have all varied in quality, ranging from the not too bad (Annabelle Creation) to the downright awful (The Nun). With a third Annabelle movie due out this year, not to mention another Conjuring sequel and other planned universe movies such as The Crooked Man, there's no sign of them stopping anytime soon.
Which brings us to The Curse of La Llorona, the latest entry to the universe and one which is based on Mexican folklore. La Llorona, also known as "The Weeping Woman", is the ghost of a woman who drowned her children and now cries while looking for them in the river. Nowadays, children are told to be well behaved and respectful of their elders, otherwise La Llorona will come and take them away.
This movie wasn't originally billed as being part of the Conjuring universe, and featured a pretty dull first trailer. However, a subsequent trailer featured a familiar face from the Annabelle movies in the form of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), and a link to the Conjuring universe was later confirmed, despite his presence in this movie being somewhat brief.
We're in Los Angeles, 1976. Anna (Linda Cardellini) is a widow with two young kids and working in social services. She still mourns the death of her police officer husband while trying to keep her family together and maintain her demanding job. That job involves dealing with some difficult cases involving children and one such case takes her to the Alvarez home. The mother appears to have lost her mind, while her children are locked in a cupboard that has strange markings on the door. As the title of the movie suggests, there is a curse at play and it's not long before that curse, and the horror that brings with it, is passed onto Anna and her children.
Like The Nun, La Llorona is essentially just a woman with scary face makeup who shrieks at people every so often and tries to make you jump. But thankfully, there's a little more to La Llorona than just that. Some slow, effective reveals provide some pretty decent chills and scares, making this a much more solid and enjoyable movie as she begins to terrorise the children before eventually invading their home and going full on evil.
After Father Perez brings us all up to speed on the backstory of La Llorona, and a flashback to 1763 gives us a visual and graphic representation, the family are referred to an ex priest who is better suited in helping them shake off the curse. He comes to their home in order to prepare for the arrival, and hopefully the removal of, La Llorona. It all feels very formulaic, similar to countless movies we've seen before, such as Poltergeist.
The Curse of La Llorona is pretty corny at times, attempting to inject humour which doesn't always seem to work. However, I did like it. It's certainly a huge step up from last year's disappointing Nun movie and featured enough intensity and scares in its short 93 minute runtime to make it enjoyable enough.
Which brings us to The Curse of La Llorona, the latest entry to the universe and one which is based on Mexican folklore. La Llorona, also known as "The Weeping Woman", is the ghost of a woman who drowned her children and now cries while looking for them in the river. Nowadays, children are told to be well behaved and respectful of their elders, otherwise La Llorona will come and take them away.
This movie wasn't originally billed as being part of the Conjuring universe, and featured a pretty dull first trailer. However, a subsequent trailer featured a familiar face from the Annabelle movies in the form of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), and a link to the Conjuring universe was later confirmed, despite his presence in this movie being somewhat brief.
We're in Los Angeles, 1976. Anna (Linda Cardellini) is a widow with two young kids and working in social services. She still mourns the death of her police officer husband while trying to keep her family together and maintain her demanding job. That job involves dealing with some difficult cases involving children and one such case takes her to the Alvarez home. The mother appears to have lost her mind, while her children are locked in a cupboard that has strange markings on the door. As the title of the movie suggests, there is a curse at play and it's not long before that curse, and the horror that brings with it, is passed onto Anna and her children.
Like The Nun, La Llorona is essentially just a woman with scary face makeup who shrieks at people every so often and tries to make you jump. But thankfully, there's a little more to La Llorona than just that. Some slow, effective reveals provide some pretty decent chills and scares, making this a much more solid and enjoyable movie as she begins to terrorise the children before eventually invading their home and going full on evil.
After Father Perez brings us all up to speed on the backstory of La Llorona, and a flashback to 1763 gives us a visual and graphic representation, the family are referred to an ex priest who is better suited in helping them shake off the curse. He comes to their home in order to prepare for the arrival, and hopefully the removal of, La Llorona. It all feels very formulaic, similar to countless movies we've seen before, such as Poltergeist.
The Curse of La Llorona is pretty corny at times, attempting to inject humour which doesn't always seem to work. However, I did like it. It's certainly a huge step up from last year's disappointing Nun movie and featured enough intensity and scares in its short 93 minute runtime to make it enjoyable enough.
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Oct 4, 2018
CGI (2 more)
Acting choice
Interesting twist to a retelling
Plot? Dragon being real or save the environment? (2 more)
Who's the bad guy?
Where was Pete the whole dang time?
Letterboxd review: https://letterboxd.com/caitcher/film/petes-dragon-2016/
First impressions video:
When I first saw this movie two years ago, I thought it was okay at best. There were plenty of good things about it, but there are the downsides that kinda take over.
The first thing I noticed was the plot. I haven't seen the original movie, but considering this was Disney in the 70's, it looked charming as Disney should. But because this is a live-action retelling, we can't have that luxury. I didn't ask for Pete's Dragon to do much. I just asked for it to be a good movie. However, throughout the entire time, I think this movie didn't know what it wanted to be about either. Did it wanna be the ripoff of a 90's "save the environment" flick or did it actually wanna be like the original involving Pete's actual existence? Hence why I called this movie a pancake to my family after coming home from seeing it. It constantly flips on the cooking pan, and it won't stop.
But what are the good things after my bad things "rant." First of all, I really liked how Pete got along with the main family, especially the daughter. It was an adorable relationship and all of the actors'...well, acting was the way it should've been. The soundtrack was also pretty decent, despite the fact that this retelling was not a musical. Lastly, the CGI on Pete actually made him look adorable and scary at the same time considering the tone of the film, which worked in its favor.
If you want more details, feel free to click on my other review links at the top of this review.
First impressions video:
When I first saw this movie two years ago, I thought it was okay at best. There were plenty of good things about it, but there are the downsides that kinda take over.
The first thing I noticed was the plot. I haven't seen the original movie, but considering this was Disney in the 70's, it looked charming as Disney should. But because this is a live-action retelling, we can't have that luxury. I didn't ask for Pete's Dragon to do much. I just asked for it to be a good movie. However, throughout the entire time, I think this movie didn't know what it wanted to be about either. Did it wanna be the ripoff of a 90's "save the environment" flick or did it actually wanna be like the original involving Pete's actual existence? Hence why I called this movie a pancake to my family after coming home from seeing it. It constantly flips on the cooking pan, and it won't stop.
But what are the good things after my bad things "rant." First of all, I really liked how Pete got along with the main family, especially the daughter. It was an adorable relationship and all of the actors'...well, acting was the way it should've been. The soundtrack was also pretty decent, despite the fact that this retelling was not a musical. Lastly, the CGI on Pete actually made him look adorable and scary at the same time considering the tone of the film, which worked in its favor.
If you want more details, feel free to click on my other review links at the top of this review.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Close (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Strong Performance From Female Lead
Close is a 2019 action/thriller movie directed by Vicky Jewson and written by Jewson and Rupert Whitaker. The movie was produced by Piccadilly Pictures, West end Films, Whitaker Media, and Jewson Film and distributed by Netflix. The film stars Noomi Rapace, Sophie Nelisse, and Indira Varma.
Close protection officer, Sam Carlson (Noomi Rapace) saves two journalists while on a routine mission in South Sudan, when their vehicle is attacked by insurgents. Troubled child, Zoe Tanner (Sophie Nelisse) discovers she's inherited all of her father's shares in his company, Hassine Mining. Her stepmother, Rima Hassine (Indira Varma) is left shocked and angered as she has taken over as CEO and it was her family which founded the company. Rima demands that Zoe accompany her to the family home in Morroco while she completes a billion dollar deal for phosphate mining in Zambia. Sam is hired by Rima for the trip as her last bodyguard was fired. Sam's job is done but Zoe demands she stay the night. Then all hell breaks loose when that night a group of armed men attack and storm the complex.
This movie was really good. It had me from the beginning but then took forever to start up again. I was excited to see Noomi Rapace as the lead in this action film and she does not disappoint. Her performance was intense and she gives her all in this film. However the direction the movie goes plot wise seemed less interesting the longer it went on. It seemed to fall more into the "cliche", run of the mill, international action thrillers or straight to redbox/on-demand films. I still liked it a lot and there were also pretty strong performances by the other leading ladies. The daughter's performance to me was more "so-so" though. Still I give this movie a 7/10.
Close protection officer, Sam Carlson (Noomi Rapace) saves two journalists while on a routine mission in South Sudan, when their vehicle is attacked by insurgents. Troubled child, Zoe Tanner (Sophie Nelisse) discovers she's inherited all of her father's shares in his company, Hassine Mining. Her stepmother, Rima Hassine (Indira Varma) is left shocked and angered as she has taken over as CEO and it was her family which founded the company. Rima demands that Zoe accompany her to the family home in Morroco while she completes a billion dollar deal for phosphate mining in Zambia. Sam is hired by Rima for the trip as her last bodyguard was fired. Sam's job is done but Zoe demands she stay the night. Then all hell breaks loose when that night a group of armed men attack and storm the complex.
This movie was really good. It had me from the beginning but then took forever to start up again. I was excited to see Noomi Rapace as the lead in this action film and she does not disappoint. Her performance was intense and she gives her all in this film. However the direction the movie goes plot wise seemed less interesting the longer it went on. It seemed to fall more into the "cliche", run of the mill, international action thrillers or straight to redbox/on-demand films. I still liked it a lot and there were also pretty strong performances by the other leading ladies. The daughter's performance to me was more "so-so" though. Still I give this movie a 7/10.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Honestly, I thought this was best entry in the series since Carpenter's Original.
Halloween II opens up with a hospital sequence referencing the original Halloween II, and honestly, this hospital scene was not only the most intense and frightening sequence from a Halloween movie, but it was also one of the most frightening and intense sequences I've seen period.
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
The Rise & Fall of a White Collar Hooligan (2012)
4.5
Rate It
Movie
An unemployed football fanatic named Mike Jacobs (played by Nick Nevern) becomes a major credit card...
Paul Schneider recommended Tokyo Olympiad (1965) in Movies (curated)
Video Cutter - The Best Prime Movie Maker Now
Social Networking
App
This app is a very useful tool app, It can help you to edit your video, Cut and Split the video...
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 18, 2021
Paul rudd (1 more)
Mckenna grace
Who u gonna call
Finally a ghostbusters sequel that's worthy of the name after the all female reboot which doesn't get mentioned here thank god we finally get a proper sequel thats faithful to the orignal which I remember seeing when I was 15 years old. excellent script good casting and of course the return of the orignal busters of course older but still got it . But for me the standout star goes to mckenna grace who steals the movie from the adults who shines thru star of the future. Overall Brilliant sequel so who u gonna call ghostbusters also stay for the end credits
Fred (860 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Not such a wonder
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are some good scenes in WW84. The beginning scene, followed by the mall scene, both great scenes. The highway scene, the invisible jet scene, very cool. But scenes don't make a movie. Well, they do, but you know what I mean. A few good scenes doesn't make a movie good. The movie is very slow, badly paced & the story, quite frankly, stinks.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
David McK (3576 KP) rated Excalibur: The Legend of King Arthur in Books
Jan 30, 2019
If I'm honest, I'm not really that much of a graphic novel/comic book kinda guy: I usually prefer to let my imagination do the work rather than have it 'shown' to me (which is also why I don't always like TV/movie adaptations).
Having said that, I thought I would give this one a go anyway. A retelling of the Arthurian legend, this takes in pretty much all the main characters and events of that legend, but not necessarily all how I was familiar with them (it involves the seelie/unseelie (i.e. faeries) which I don't remember ever having been part of the legend before).
Starting with Arthur's conception and ending with his 'death' at Badon Hill, the novel also glosses over some of the less savory actions that Arthur is supposed to have carried out (ref Tristan and Isolde).
An OK read, and while yes, I may pick up some of the others in the series, this failed to really change my perception of graphic novels as a whole.
Having said that, I thought I would give this one a go anyway. A retelling of the Arthurian legend, this takes in pretty much all the main characters and events of that legend, but not necessarily all how I was familiar with them (it involves the seelie/unseelie (i.e. faeries) which I don't remember ever having been part of the legend before).
Starting with Arthur's conception and ending with his 'death' at Badon Hill, the novel also glosses over some of the less savory actions that Arthur is supposed to have carried out (ref Tristan and Isolde).
An OK read, and while yes, I may pick up some of the others in the series, this failed to really change my perception of graphic novels as a whole.