Search
Leigh J (71 KP) rated Doom Asylum (1987) in Movies
Nov 8, 2019
It's SO BAD... that it's actually quite good.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I honestly don't even know where to start with Doom Asylum. The dialogue is absolutely terrible and will leave you scratching your head (for example, a girl says to her Boyfriend "can I call you Mom?"... what?!), the acting is cringeworthy...I mean, it has to be bad if Kristin Davis (Sex in the City) is the best actor on the set and the Killer is confusing, to say the least.
Lemme tell you about the Plot... A couple get involved in a Car Accident and the woman in the accident subsequently dies, the man in the accident wakes up in the Morgue and, disfigured and in a rage of the untimely loss of his Partner, kills the 2 Morgue Assistants, who seem shockingly cavalier about their gruesome fate. However, it appears this Morgue is in an Asylum... not a Hospital. Why would you take a person injured in a Car crash to an Asylum? Why did they not check his pulse? I still have so many questions. Anyway, the Asylum is shut down, and 10 years later 2 groups of Teens decide to hang out and party there. One group being an all girl Punk band, the other being a small group of Friends... one of whom happens to be the daughter of the Woman who died in the Car accident 10 years before. The Killer sees that she looks just like the late love of his life, and he'll chop through anyone, and everyone, to get to her.
Honestly, this Movie is an acquired taste. Only for the die hard old school Horror fans, and they might even scoff at the idea of this 79 minute atrocity. I definitely left this Movie with an expression of dismay on my face... but something did keep me watching it until the end. I don't honestly know what, all I can say is that it was such a trainwreck that I couldn't look away, but this Movie is so bad that it's actually a little bit good. I will just never watch it again for a few years (hopefully) and will never admit to liking it in public. Only for the Horror fans who like a bit (okay, a lot) of cringe with their Gore.
Lemme tell you about the Plot... A couple get involved in a Car Accident and the woman in the accident subsequently dies, the man in the accident wakes up in the Morgue and, disfigured and in a rage of the untimely loss of his Partner, kills the 2 Morgue Assistants, who seem shockingly cavalier about their gruesome fate. However, it appears this Morgue is in an Asylum... not a Hospital. Why would you take a person injured in a Car crash to an Asylum? Why did they not check his pulse? I still have so many questions. Anyway, the Asylum is shut down, and 10 years later 2 groups of Teens decide to hang out and party there. One group being an all girl Punk band, the other being a small group of Friends... one of whom happens to be the daughter of the Woman who died in the Car accident 10 years before. The Killer sees that she looks just like the late love of his life, and he'll chop through anyone, and everyone, to get to her.
Honestly, this Movie is an acquired taste. Only for the die hard old school Horror fans, and they might even scoff at the idea of this 79 minute atrocity. I definitely left this Movie with an expression of dismay on my face... but something did keep me watching it until the end. I don't honestly know what, all I can say is that it was such a trainwreck that I couldn't look away, but this Movie is so bad that it's actually a little bit good. I will just never watch it again for a few years (hopefully) and will never admit to liking it in public. Only for the Horror fans who like a bit (okay, a lot) of cringe with their Gore.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Happy Death Day (2017) in Movies
Oct 26, 2017
Plenty of humour (1 more)
Jessica Rothe is great
Enjoable Groundhog Day/Scream Mashup
It's not that scary, and there's no real blood or gore for die hard horror fans to enjoy, but Happy Death Day - the latest offering from Blumhouse Productions - still manages to deliver a wildly entertaining mashup of Groundhog Day and Scream.
College girl Tree Gelbman wakes up in the dorm of a boy she doesn't remember spending the night with. She has a pounding headache and can't wait to get out of there as quickly as possible. Sneering at the goth on her way out, avoiding the clipboard wielding tree hugger and blanking the less popular girl that smiles at her as she returns to her sorority house. Back in her room, her room mate has a birthday cupcake for Tree in honour of her special day, which she dumps in the bin on her way out to the class she's late for. Later on, we discover that she's sleeping with one of her college teachers, whose wife nearly catches them together. There certainly do seem to be a lot of people who have every right to be pissed at Tree. And, later that evening on her way to a party, Tree is approached by someone wearing a black hoodie and a baby mask. As the mysterious figure murders her, she wakes up, back in the boys dorm from that morning, and she finds herself having to endure her birth/death day once more.
Tree is understandably confused, as the days events begin to play out exactly as they did before, right up until the point where she's murdered again by the mask wearing killer. From there she goes through stages of anger, despair and acceptance, eventually coming to the conclusion that no matter what she does or where she hides, the Baby Faced killer is always going to find her and kill her, triggering the reset button on the day in the process. It's up to her to try and whittle down that big list of suspects, and take out the killer before they get chance to kill her. The only trouble is, each time that Tree dies the injuries she sustained leave a negative impact on her body, so she only has a limited number of days to find the killer and break the loop before she is gone forever.
So much of this movie rests on Jessica Rothe as Tree, and she just nails it, successfully moving Tree from victim to full-on bad-ass and becoming more and more likeable as she sets about changing her ways in order to get close to those potential suspects. There's a lot of humour throughout, and a pretty decent twist towards the end, just to keep you on your toes. Overall I really liked this. There's even a nice, last minute mention of Groundhog Day, the classic movie that this owes so much to.
College girl Tree Gelbman wakes up in the dorm of a boy she doesn't remember spending the night with. She has a pounding headache and can't wait to get out of there as quickly as possible. Sneering at the goth on her way out, avoiding the clipboard wielding tree hugger and blanking the less popular girl that smiles at her as she returns to her sorority house. Back in her room, her room mate has a birthday cupcake for Tree in honour of her special day, which she dumps in the bin on her way out to the class she's late for. Later on, we discover that she's sleeping with one of her college teachers, whose wife nearly catches them together. There certainly do seem to be a lot of people who have every right to be pissed at Tree. And, later that evening on her way to a party, Tree is approached by someone wearing a black hoodie and a baby mask. As the mysterious figure murders her, she wakes up, back in the boys dorm from that morning, and she finds herself having to endure her birth/death day once more.
Tree is understandably confused, as the days events begin to play out exactly as they did before, right up until the point where she's murdered again by the mask wearing killer. From there she goes through stages of anger, despair and acceptance, eventually coming to the conclusion that no matter what she does or where she hides, the Baby Faced killer is always going to find her and kill her, triggering the reset button on the day in the process. It's up to her to try and whittle down that big list of suspects, and take out the killer before they get chance to kill her. The only trouble is, each time that Tree dies the injuries she sustained leave a negative impact on her body, so she only has a limited number of days to find the killer and break the loop before she is gone forever.
So much of this movie rests on Jessica Rothe as Tree, and she just nails it, successfully moving Tree from victim to full-on bad-ass and becoming more and more likeable as she sets about changing her ways in order to get close to those potential suspects. There's a lot of humour throughout, and a pretty decent twist towards the end, just to keep you on your toes. Overall I really liked this. There's even a nice, last minute mention of Groundhog Day, the classic movie that this owes so much to.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien Abduction (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alien Abduction starts by informing us this is based on actual footage found, *sigh*. This before going off to show us footage that looks like is being shot through a pair of fingers with screaming in the background. All this and the camera gets dropped out the spacecraft. The film then decides to inform us about The Brown Mountain Lights a location in North Carolina that has a high disappearance rate. Time for the experts and locals to give us their stories about what has been happening and a theory behind what is happening. More reading before we find out who the camera belonged too.
Oh great now the film starts with the Morris family and their camcorder holiday being filmed by autistic 11 year old boy Riley (Polanski). The family which includes Katie (Sigismund), Corey (Eid), Jillian (Clare) and Peter (Holden) are camping out around the The Brown Mountain. On the first night the children see UFOs in the sky and film it but don’t seem to rewind and watch it. The family continues their trip and gets lost while travelling to the next location and the family finds themselves stranded very low on gas. What the family finds next is a string of abandoned cars blocking the road and investigating the tunnel they find themselves under attack from aliens.
We now have to deal with an over panicked family running for their lives against an enemy they can’t imagine beating. The family makes out hiding with generic redneck Sean (Bowser) where they have to survive the night.
Alien Abduction started off by really annoying me for first 5 odd minutes because of the amount of reading on a found footage film is too much. One thing that always annoys me with found footage is bad decision and this is filled with them starting very early on. Let’s list them panicking too much, turning the light on in the dark so the aliens know where you are, not turning around after finding plenty of abandoned cars and finally after the first light sighting why didn’t you just pack up and go home. I know a lot of these found footage films criticise why they carry on filming but I think this one gets away with it by making the kid autistic and needs to film everything to keep him happy. In the end this does have good scares but not original ones and you never really end up feeling truly scared as everything unfolds because you know how it ends thanks to the beginning. (4/10)
Actor Review
Katherine Sigismund: Katie Morris is the mother of the family who is all out to protect her family from the aliens, she tries to stay strong after the early loss of the father. Katherine does a solid job by making us feel like she really is the mother of the house. (6/10)
Corey Eid: Corey Morris is the eldest son who has to become the man after his father sacrifices himself to save the rest of the family. Corey does solid job and like most of the cast we really do believe they are just a family. (6/10)
Riley Polanski: Riley Morris is our autistic cameraman and we see nearly the whole film from his point of view, this helps use try and get into the idea of the fear he would be going through watching his family being picked off one by one. It is hard to rate someone behind the camera. (5/10)
Jillian Clare: Jillian Morris is the only daughter of the family who has to try and help keep Riley safe once the aliens start turning up. Jillian gives a solid performance but never really shines. (6/10)
Jeff Bowser: Sean is the nice redneck who lives in and around the mountains that helps the family try and survive the horror that is out there waiting for them. Jeff does a solid job and his character constantly turning up makes us believe they could survive. (6/10)
Support Cast: Alien Abduction doesn’t really have much of a supporting cast with the only character we actual meet in the father of the family who doesn’t last too long.
Director Review: Matty Beckerman – Matty does a solid job with the scares, but gave away too much information about the location because there was no reason or chance for the characters to learn about the history. (5/10)
Horror: Alien Abduction enters the found footage horror genre nicely but will end up going down as a standard one. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Alien Abduction uses the alien abduction well but never really makes us see more than we need to about the ship. (6/10)
Thriller: Alien Abduction never lets you care about the characters because you know what happens at the end, not all found footage films need everyone to die. (6/10)
Settings: Alien Abduction puts us in a location that could very well have unexplained experiences happening there but surely people would suggest not going there on a camping trip. (8/10)
Suggestion: Alien Abduction is one for the found footage fans out there to try it isn’t special but does have its good moments. (Found Footage Fans Try)
Best Part: Not holding back with the first alien encounter.
Worst Part: Too much given away early on with the reading.
Kill Of The Film: Katie
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes there are two.
Similar Too: VHS 2 Alien Abduction part.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes
Tagline: Fear The Lights
Overall: Found Footage falls from the sky here, literally.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/22/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-alien-abduction-2014/
Oh great now the film starts with the Morris family and their camcorder holiday being filmed by autistic 11 year old boy Riley (Polanski). The family which includes Katie (Sigismund), Corey (Eid), Jillian (Clare) and Peter (Holden) are camping out around the The Brown Mountain. On the first night the children see UFOs in the sky and film it but don’t seem to rewind and watch it. The family continues their trip and gets lost while travelling to the next location and the family finds themselves stranded very low on gas. What the family finds next is a string of abandoned cars blocking the road and investigating the tunnel they find themselves under attack from aliens.
We now have to deal with an over panicked family running for their lives against an enemy they can’t imagine beating. The family makes out hiding with generic redneck Sean (Bowser) where they have to survive the night.
Alien Abduction started off by really annoying me for first 5 odd minutes because of the amount of reading on a found footage film is too much. One thing that always annoys me with found footage is bad decision and this is filled with them starting very early on. Let’s list them panicking too much, turning the light on in the dark so the aliens know where you are, not turning around after finding plenty of abandoned cars and finally after the first light sighting why didn’t you just pack up and go home. I know a lot of these found footage films criticise why they carry on filming but I think this one gets away with it by making the kid autistic and needs to film everything to keep him happy. In the end this does have good scares but not original ones and you never really end up feeling truly scared as everything unfolds because you know how it ends thanks to the beginning. (4/10)
Actor Review
Katherine Sigismund: Katie Morris is the mother of the family who is all out to protect her family from the aliens, she tries to stay strong after the early loss of the father. Katherine does a solid job by making us feel like she really is the mother of the house. (6/10)
Corey Eid: Corey Morris is the eldest son who has to become the man after his father sacrifices himself to save the rest of the family. Corey does solid job and like most of the cast we really do believe they are just a family. (6/10)
Riley Polanski: Riley Morris is our autistic cameraman and we see nearly the whole film from his point of view, this helps use try and get into the idea of the fear he would be going through watching his family being picked off one by one. It is hard to rate someone behind the camera. (5/10)
Jillian Clare: Jillian Morris is the only daughter of the family who has to try and help keep Riley safe once the aliens start turning up. Jillian gives a solid performance but never really shines. (6/10)
Jeff Bowser: Sean is the nice redneck who lives in and around the mountains that helps the family try and survive the horror that is out there waiting for them. Jeff does a solid job and his character constantly turning up makes us believe they could survive. (6/10)
Support Cast: Alien Abduction doesn’t really have much of a supporting cast with the only character we actual meet in the father of the family who doesn’t last too long.
Director Review: Matty Beckerman – Matty does a solid job with the scares, but gave away too much information about the location because there was no reason or chance for the characters to learn about the history. (5/10)
Horror: Alien Abduction enters the found footage horror genre nicely but will end up going down as a standard one. (7/10)
Sci-Fi: Alien Abduction uses the alien abduction well but never really makes us see more than we need to about the ship. (6/10)
Thriller: Alien Abduction never lets you care about the characters because you know what happens at the end, not all found footage films need everyone to die. (6/10)
Settings: Alien Abduction puts us in a location that could very well have unexplained experiences happening there but surely people would suggest not going there on a camping trip. (8/10)
Suggestion: Alien Abduction is one for the found footage fans out there to try it isn’t special but does have its good moments. (Found Footage Fans Try)
Best Part: Not holding back with the first alien encounter.
Worst Part: Too much given away early on with the reading.
Kill Of The Film: Katie
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes there are two.
Similar Too: VHS 2 Alien Abduction part.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes
Tagline: Fear The Lights
Overall: Found Footage falls from the sky here, literally.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/22/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-alien-abduction-2014/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019 (Updated Apr 5, 2019)
Not only have I not read the Stephen King book that Pet Sematary is based on, I haven't even seen the original 1989 movie either. As much as I feel ashamed for completely missing out on both of those, it also meant that I was able to head into this movie with nothing to compare it to and no idea of what to expect, other than a bit of creepy-burial-ground-raising-the-dead type stuff that the first trailer covered. One quick note on the trailers before I begin though - the most recent one, which luckily I only saw after I had seen the movie, pretty much gives away the entire plot. Granted, if you're a fan of Stephen Kings work, or even the original movie, then you're going to know what to expect anyway. But, if you're like me - someone who enjoys a good horror movie, but doesn't read books and has gaping holes in his movie viewing history, then try and give the trailers a miss on this occasion before heading into the cinema.
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Bad writing (1 more)
Mostly romance
Drowning is one of the top fears in the world, and it's also one of the top ways to cover up a murder. In Lie to Me, Ward's fourth YA novel, she uses drowning as the basis of the story. Yet, this book fell very short in the thriller/mystery genre: Ward gives away too many hints at the beginning of the book, that most readers will have the murderer figured out by chapter 7; she also focuses too much on romance, something that should have caused this story to be filed under a different category other than mystery/thriller. But luckily she didn't bring in a wide circle of characters to cause confusion, using only one view point from the main character of Lie to Me: Amelia- - - a teen girl who believes she was pushed down a ravine to be left for dead in the raging water below.
Besides her 'accident,' Amelia leads a normal life with her mother, father and brother, Hunter - - - she also has a small group of friends. After her 'fall,' a body of a teen girl from the same town is found in a nearby river, but the town gossips, and makes it seem that this girl committed suicide, leaving Amelia worried that her family would think the same thing about her. Depression is something that Amelia's family has had to deal with before, but the talk of depression is candid and not very enlightening; her brother, Hunter, who is in therapy for such doesn't even talk about it, instead he's usually seen playing soccer or Fortnite, this seems to be a broad attempt to bring mental health into the story,but without going into that subject, it failed as a story line. Yet, one of the main causes of depression today is social media, which we find Amelia stalking one of her best friends/love interest on- - -if Ward was trying to reach the YA community about depression, she went the wrong way about it.
Another mistake that Ward made was when Amelia receives an anonymous text message from someone telling her to 'Just let it go,Amelia,' this occurs after she has started investigating whether her 'accident' was an accident. Amelia tells us that she is always suspicious of everyone, but when this text message comes around, it's as if she could care less. She even tries to take the anonymous message as advice: " 'Or it's advice.' I feel backed into a corner. It's one thing to believe someone hurt me and another thing to have proof of it. I don't want this to be proof. 'I mean, Sky's always telling me I should let my life get back to normal, and she doesn't even know I'm thinking any of this. Maybe someone else feels that way,too.' " In reality, if you believed that someone attempted to murder you, and suddenly you are receiving a cryptic message about letting it go, wouldn't the logic thing to do is go to the police?? Amelia doesn't!
Ward has written three other YA novels, 'Lie to Me' being her fourth. The writing in this story is bad in some places, for example, a scene with Amelia and her best friend, Sky, meeting up at the 'screen' (technically a giant drive-in movie theater screen); Amelia thinks about how this town is a haven for her, that everyone feels safe, but the very next paragraph, she's stating she doesn't feel safe anymore. This makes sense if you haven't read it, but the way it's written could have been in a much better and concise way. This and most scenes makes the story read like a sloppy diary entry. That, and the killer being predictable so early on in the story made me very disappointed with this book. 'Lie to Me' had great potential from the synopsis, but it lacked story, mystery, suspense and diverse characters.
I can't recommend this book to people who love horror stories, like I do. I think the only ones who would enjoy this story are the die-hard YA fans. It has everything that YA is known for: romance and teen drama, but it's lacking in everything else. Other than that, I don't think I'll read another book by Ward, but as far as Point horror books go, I will still give them a shot.
Besides her 'accident,' Amelia leads a normal life with her mother, father and brother, Hunter - - - she also has a small group of friends. After her 'fall,' a body of a teen girl from the same town is found in a nearby river, but the town gossips, and makes it seem that this girl committed suicide, leaving Amelia worried that her family would think the same thing about her. Depression is something that Amelia's family has had to deal with before, but the talk of depression is candid and not very enlightening; her brother, Hunter, who is in therapy for such doesn't even talk about it, instead he's usually seen playing soccer or Fortnite, this seems to be a broad attempt to bring mental health into the story,but without going into that subject, it failed as a story line. Yet, one of the main causes of depression today is social media, which we find Amelia stalking one of her best friends/love interest on- - -if Ward was trying to reach the YA community about depression, she went the wrong way about it.
Another mistake that Ward made was when Amelia receives an anonymous text message from someone telling her to 'Just let it go,Amelia,' this occurs after she has started investigating whether her 'accident' was an accident. Amelia tells us that she is always suspicious of everyone, but when this text message comes around, it's as if she could care less. She even tries to take the anonymous message as advice: " 'Or it's advice.' I feel backed into a corner. It's one thing to believe someone hurt me and another thing to have proof of it. I don't want this to be proof. 'I mean, Sky's always telling me I should let my life get back to normal, and she doesn't even know I'm thinking any of this. Maybe someone else feels that way,too.' " In reality, if you believed that someone attempted to murder you, and suddenly you are receiving a cryptic message about letting it go, wouldn't the logic thing to do is go to the police?? Amelia doesn't!
Ward has written three other YA novels, 'Lie to Me' being her fourth. The writing in this story is bad in some places, for example, a scene with Amelia and her best friend, Sky, meeting up at the 'screen' (technically a giant drive-in movie theater screen); Amelia thinks about how this town is a haven for her, that everyone feels safe, but the very next paragraph, she's stating she doesn't feel safe anymore. This makes sense if you haven't read it, but the way it's written could have been in a much better and concise way. This and most scenes makes the story read like a sloppy diary entry. That, and the killer being predictable so early on in the story made me very disappointed with this book. 'Lie to Me' had great potential from the synopsis, but it lacked story, mystery, suspense and diverse characters.
I can't recommend this book to people who love horror stories, like I do. I think the only ones who would enjoy this story are the die-hard YA fans. It has everything that YA is known for: romance and teen drama, but it's lacking in everything else. Other than that, I don't think I'll read another book by Ward, but as far as Point horror books go, I will still give them a shot.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
The most amazing thing about classic horror stories is how they still influence many writers today.
To read 'the Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein,' you don't have to know anything about Mary Shelley's original creation. No, this book seems to take the story of Dr. Frankenstein in a completely different direction than what was known 200 years ago. I, personally, haven't read Shelley's book, but after reading this one, I certainly want to now. Victor Frankenstein is the most interesting character I have read about in a long time.
'The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein' takes us to Victor's childhood, where we observe him becoming the insane doctor that he was in 'Frankenstein' - but this one doesn't pass Victor's 21st birthday, and his creation of a 'creature' is much earlier than in Shelley's version. This book was still very enjoyable,even if it doesn't line up with the classic. But instead of following Victor's descent into darkness, we follow Elizabeth's ascension from darkness through her need to be taken care of for the remainder of her life - 'And if Victor did not seem to respond to my sweetness,I would simply cry. He never could stand it when I cried. It would hurt him. I smiled in anticipation, letting the meanness at my core stretch like ill-used muscles' Another interesting part of this book is seeing how well the author, White, creates a sociopathic lead female character, who has tailored herself to wearing the right faces and acting a certain way to get what she wants.
We enter the book with Elizabeth and her good friend, Justine, on a trip to find Victor, who has stopped writing from school some months before - Victor's mother had died before he left, and now Elizabeth was questioning whether or not his father was going to keep her around. We get flash backs here and there of Elizabeth and Victor as children together. The reader is shown that Elizabeth is the only person who can calm Victor during his 'rages,' and she seems to be the only person he allowed inside his world. We're led to believe that Elizabeth truly cares for Victor,but quickly we are told that she only cares if she has a roof over her head or not. Eventually, Elizabeth finds Victor, but he is in the midst of a fever - an ailment he falls under quite often whenever his studies would keep him from eating, drinking and sleeping - he whispers in a fever state 'Do not tell Elizabeth.' and 'It worked.' The horror quickly takes place when Elizabeth explores his surroundings to find a makeshift lab with body parts,both human and animal.
The book spends a lot of time with Elizabeth waiting on Victor, usually for him to return home to the Frankenstein estate. Although White does an amazing job of bringing back words and writing that was of 200 years ago, sometimes it seems she's too busy concentrating on that rather than paying attention to consistency. The story had me glued to the book from part one, but what really kept me going was the character, Victor. If this entire story had been from his point of view, I would have put this book at the top of my favorite books list. This also should have been titled 'the Dark Descent of Victor Frankenstein,' because it's Victor who seems to slowly descend into madness, not Elizabeth, she seems to know what he is going to become, but because she is so occupied with keeping her place at the Frankenstein household, she does nothing to stop it.
Victor, by today's standards, is a murderer in the making:
"The deer stopped keening. It did not die as Victor tugged the knife through the skin over its stomach. I had imagined it parting like the crust of a loaf of bread,but it was tough, resistant. The sound of tearing made me sick. I turned away as Victor strained to make progress with blood coating his hands and making the knife slippery."
Elizabeth takes great measures to keep Victor out of trouble,even when he nearly severs the arm of his little brother out of curiosity. She focuses on keeping the little brother alive, then placing blame on the nursemaid by planting a pair of scissors from her sewing supplies. Elizabeth was not only a good liar, but she was also an antagonist. When Victor seems to not be able to cope with what he did to his little brother, she quickly tells him what they will say to his father: " ' We know what happened. It was the nursemaid's fault for leaving out her sewing supplies. She is stupid and lazy and still sleeping. She will be punished and relieved of her duties. Ernest will be fine.' I paused to be sure Victor understood that this was our story,no matter what. 'And we are fortunate that she is stupid and lazy and convenient, and nothing like this will happen again. Will it?' " She may have very well been the reason Victor did the things he did.
Victor, of course, ends up making a monster, but White didn't try to retell the Shelley novel, instead she tried to give it a different spin from a different perspective. As a storyteller, White did an impressive job with wording and flashbacks. For die-hard fans of Shelley's 'Frankenstein,' I wouldn't recommend ' the Dark Decent of Elizabeth Frankenstein' unless you are willing to read it with an open mind. I only wish there had been more scenes with Victor - an unforgettable character.
To read 'the Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein,' you don't have to know anything about Mary Shelley's original creation. No, this book seems to take the story of Dr. Frankenstein in a completely different direction than what was known 200 years ago. I, personally, haven't read Shelley's book, but after reading this one, I certainly want to now. Victor Frankenstein is the most interesting character I have read about in a long time.
'The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein' takes us to Victor's childhood, where we observe him becoming the insane doctor that he was in 'Frankenstein' - but this one doesn't pass Victor's 21st birthday, and his creation of a 'creature' is much earlier than in Shelley's version. This book was still very enjoyable,even if it doesn't line up with the classic. But instead of following Victor's descent into darkness, we follow Elizabeth's ascension from darkness through her need to be taken care of for the remainder of her life - 'And if Victor did not seem to respond to my sweetness,I would simply cry. He never could stand it when I cried. It would hurt him. I smiled in anticipation, letting the meanness at my core stretch like ill-used muscles' Another interesting part of this book is seeing how well the author, White, creates a sociopathic lead female character, who has tailored herself to wearing the right faces and acting a certain way to get what she wants.
We enter the book with Elizabeth and her good friend, Justine, on a trip to find Victor, who has stopped writing from school some months before - Victor's mother had died before he left, and now Elizabeth was questioning whether or not his father was going to keep her around. We get flash backs here and there of Elizabeth and Victor as children together. The reader is shown that Elizabeth is the only person who can calm Victor during his 'rages,' and she seems to be the only person he allowed inside his world. We're led to believe that Elizabeth truly cares for Victor,but quickly we are told that she only cares if she has a roof over her head or not. Eventually, Elizabeth finds Victor, but he is in the midst of a fever - an ailment he falls under quite often whenever his studies would keep him from eating, drinking and sleeping - he whispers in a fever state 'Do not tell Elizabeth.' and 'It worked.' The horror quickly takes place when Elizabeth explores his surroundings to find a makeshift lab with body parts,both human and animal.
The book spends a lot of time with Elizabeth waiting on Victor, usually for him to return home to the Frankenstein estate. Although White does an amazing job of bringing back words and writing that was of 200 years ago, sometimes it seems she's too busy concentrating on that rather than paying attention to consistency. The story had me glued to the book from part one, but what really kept me going was the character, Victor. If this entire story had been from his point of view, I would have put this book at the top of my favorite books list. This also should have been titled 'the Dark Descent of Victor Frankenstein,' because it's Victor who seems to slowly descend into madness, not Elizabeth, she seems to know what he is going to become, but because she is so occupied with keeping her place at the Frankenstein household, she does nothing to stop it.
Victor, by today's standards, is a murderer in the making:
"The deer stopped keening. It did not die as Victor tugged the knife through the skin over its stomach. I had imagined it parting like the crust of a loaf of bread,but it was tough, resistant. The sound of tearing made me sick. I turned away as Victor strained to make progress with blood coating his hands and making the knife slippery."
Elizabeth takes great measures to keep Victor out of trouble,even when he nearly severs the arm of his little brother out of curiosity. She focuses on keeping the little brother alive, then placing blame on the nursemaid by planting a pair of scissors from her sewing supplies. Elizabeth was not only a good liar, but she was also an antagonist. When Victor seems to not be able to cope with what he did to his little brother, she quickly tells him what they will say to his father: " ' We know what happened. It was the nursemaid's fault for leaving out her sewing supplies. She is stupid and lazy and still sleeping. She will be punished and relieved of her duties. Ernest will be fine.' I paused to be sure Victor understood that this was our story,no matter what. 'And we are fortunate that she is stupid and lazy and convenient, and nothing like this will happen again. Will it?' " She may have very well been the reason Victor did the things he did.
Victor, of course, ends up making a monster, but White didn't try to retell the Shelley novel, instead she tried to give it a different spin from a different perspective. As a storyteller, White did an impressive job with wording and flashbacks. For die-hard fans of Shelley's 'Frankenstein,' I wouldn't recommend ' the Dark Decent of Elizabeth Frankenstein' unless you are willing to read it with an open mind. I only wish there had been more scenes with Victor - an unforgettable character.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Home Alone (1990) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It's not Christmas until Kevin says "I've made my family disappear." In fact, it's probably one of the few that I actively watch every year, and it's one of two that I'll happily watch at any time of the year. (The other being Die Hard... don't get on my case, you know it's a Christmas film.)
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/