Search
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020
Gremlins Take Over The Big Apple
Gremlins 2: The New Batch- is a good sequel. Its still has its dark humor, comedy, horror and of course many gremlins. And you cant not forgot about Hulk Hogan, yes you read that right Hulk Hogan is in this. And the horror legend and icon Christopher Lee is also in this.
The plot: The magical collectibles store that Gizmo calls home has just been destroyed, and the tiny monster finds his way into a newly erected skyscraper. Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) and his bride-to-be, Kate (Phoebe Cates), who have previously dealt with Gremlins run amok, discover that Gizmo and an impish legion of reptilian pals are inhabiting the downtown building. The couple tries to stop the creatures from escaping into New York City, but this new batch of beasts might be uncontrollable.
Like the first film, Gremlins 2: The New Batch is a live-action horror comedy film; however, Dante put effort into taking the sequel in new anarchistic directions. The film is meant to be more cartoon-like and less dark than the original, with slapstick violence, so the film received a PG-13 rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). There are also a number of parodies of other films and stories, including Gremlins itself, the Rambo films, The Wizard of Oz, Marathon Man and The Phantom of the Opera.
Along with the main plot, there is animation by Chuck Jones in the film featuring the Looney Tunes characters Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. Jones had actually quit animation before returning to work on Gremlins 2: The New Batch.Dante explained the animation at the beginning of the film was meant to "set the anarchic tone."
The first scene appears at the very beginning of the movie, and features the classic Looney Tunes opening card, causing people to assume it is the short cartoon that usually plays before a movie begins; however, when Bugs appears through the rings on top of the Warner Bros. shield, Daffy interrupts the intro, and steals the shield from Bugs. Daffy attempts to recreate the opening with himself in Bugs' place, but the shield overshoots, causing the entire title card to fall apart. Daffy surrenders the stardom, claiming that since he will not star in the cartoon, they might as well just skip straight to the movie. Bugs is willing to do so, and spins Daffy off screen like a spinning top for the movie title to appear.
The DVD and Blu-ray include a longer version of the cartoon short. In it, Daffy is informed by Bugs that he has been promoted to executive and is subsequently put in charge writing the title of the movie. When Daffy mistakenly writes the title Gremlins 2 as "Gremlin Stew", Bugs corrects the error. Daffy then attempts to rename the film The Return of Super-Daffy Meets Gremlins 2 Part 6: The Movie, but Bugs rejects this for being too long, changing it back to Gremlins 2 (rendered in the font of the official logo). Daffy then quits his new job and Bugs decides to add in the subtitle, saying it looks "a little skimpy". This material was removed from the film because early audiences expected a live-action film and were bewildered by the lengthy animated sequence.
Throughout the film's closing credits, Daffy pops into frame sporadically and spouts off sarcastic comments. The last scene appears after the credits, and again features the Looney Tunes rings. This time, Porky comes out of the rings and tries to say his usual "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" However, Daffy interrupts again and takes over. After Daffy says the slogan, the back of the Warner Bros. shield, with the words, "Title Animation Written & Directed by Chuck Jones (with Chuck Jones' signature)", smashes him. He peeks his head out to the left side and says, "Fade out," and the segment ends.
Its a good film.
The plot: The magical collectibles store that Gizmo calls home has just been destroyed, and the tiny monster finds his way into a newly erected skyscraper. Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) and his bride-to-be, Kate (Phoebe Cates), who have previously dealt with Gremlins run amok, discover that Gizmo and an impish legion of reptilian pals are inhabiting the downtown building. The couple tries to stop the creatures from escaping into New York City, but this new batch of beasts might be uncontrollable.
Like the first film, Gremlins 2: The New Batch is a live-action horror comedy film; however, Dante put effort into taking the sequel in new anarchistic directions. The film is meant to be more cartoon-like and less dark than the original, with slapstick violence, so the film received a PG-13 rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). There are also a number of parodies of other films and stories, including Gremlins itself, the Rambo films, The Wizard of Oz, Marathon Man and The Phantom of the Opera.
Along with the main plot, there is animation by Chuck Jones in the film featuring the Looney Tunes characters Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. Jones had actually quit animation before returning to work on Gremlins 2: The New Batch.Dante explained the animation at the beginning of the film was meant to "set the anarchic tone."
The first scene appears at the very beginning of the movie, and features the classic Looney Tunes opening card, causing people to assume it is the short cartoon that usually plays before a movie begins; however, when Bugs appears through the rings on top of the Warner Bros. shield, Daffy interrupts the intro, and steals the shield from Bugs. Daffy attempts to recreate the opening with himself in Bugs' place, but the shield overshoots, causing the entire title card to fall apart. Daffy surrenders the stardom, claiming that since he will not star in the cartoon, they might as well just skip straight to the movie. Bugs is willing to do so, and spins Daffy off screen like a spinning top for the movie title to appear.
The DVD and Blu-ray include a longer version of the cartoon short. In it, Daffy is informed by Bugs that he has been promoted to executive and is subsequently put in charge writing the title of the movie. When Daffy mistakenly writes the title Gremlins 2 as "Gremlin Stew", Bugs corrects the error. Daffy then attempts to rename the film The Return of Super-Daffy Meets Gremlins 2 Part 6: The Movie, but Bugs rejects this for being too long, changing it back to Gremlins 2 (rendered in the font of the official logo). Daffy then quits his new job and Bugs decides to add in the subtitle, saying it looks "a little skimpy". This material was removed from the film because early audiences expected a live-action film and were bewildered by the lengthy animated sequence.
Throughout the film's closing credits, Daffy pops into frame sporadically and spouts off sarcastic comments. The last scene appears after the credits, and again features the Looney Tunes rings. This time, Porky comes out of the rings and tries to say his usual "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" However, Daffy interrupts again and takes over. After Daffy says the slogan, the back of the Warner Bros. shield, with the words, "Title Animation Written & Directed by Chuck Jones (with Chuck Jones' signature)", smashes him. He peeks his head out to the left side and says, "Fade out," and the segment ends.
Its a good film.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla: Final Wars (2004) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
Everything but the Nagashidai
Almost wholly nuts kaiju-SF movie originally produced for the 50th anniversary of Godzilla's first appearance. It actually does a pretty good job of having something for everyone - everyone who's ever enjoyed a Godzilla film, anyway. The plot is certainly reminiscent of some of the 60s movies - aliens from Planet X (seriously) turn up and initially pretend to be friendly, but turn out to be intent on taking over the world, using their ability to control almost all of Earth's monsters. Naturally, Godzilla is immune, and the desperate human characters resort to releasing Godzilla from the prison he's been in for years so he can sort the invaders out - even if this will mean him having to fight virtually every other monster on the planet almost single-handed.
All very promising, if you like this sort of thing, but the director's clear desire to actually be making a Matrix sequel is a bit intrusive - there's a lot of human-on-human martial arts action which isn't what I personally turn up to a Godzilla movie for. The sheer knowing silliness of the film may also be off-putting for some viewers.
But set against all that, there's a bit where Mothra battles Gigan! There's a fight between proper Japanese Godzilla and the mutant iguana pretender from the Roland Emmerich version! You get to see Baby Godzilla sitting in the cab of a pick-up truck during an unexpected subplot about hitch-hiking! And much more. (Keith Emerson's soundtrack is very atypical for a Godzilla film, but actually pretty funky.) The sheer profusion of monsters - nearly every Toho beastie makes at least a cameo, the only big-name absentee being Mechagodzilla - and the cheerful craziness of the story make this, if not quite an entirely worthy tribute to Godzilla's first fifty years, then certainly a very hard film to completely dislike.
All very promising, if you like this sort of thing, but the director's clear desire to actually be making a Matrix sequel is a bit intrusive - there's a lot of human-on-human martial arts action which isn't what I personally turn up to a Godzilla movie for. The sheer knowing silliness of the film may also be off-putting for some viewers.
But set against all that, there's a bit where Mothra battles Gigan! There's a fight between proper Japanese Godzilla and the mutant iguana pretender from the Roland Emmerich version! You get to see Baby Godzilla sitting in the cab of a pick-up truck during an unexpected subplot about hitch-hiking! And much more. (Keith Emerson's soundtrack is very atypical for a Godzilla film, but actually pretty funky.) The sheer profusion of monsters - nearly every Toho beastie makes at least a cameo, the only big-name absentee being Mechagodzilla - and the cheerful craziness of the story make this, if not quite an entirely worthy tribute to Godzilla's first fifty years, then certainly a very hard film to completely dislike.
Katie (868 KP) rated Mad Monster Party? (1967) in Movies
Jun 16, 2018
Excellent character design (3 more)
Overall look of the film
Francesca is a style icon
Little Tibia and the Fibias!!
Slow paced (1 more)
Very little substance
Tons of style, very little substance
I went into this one really expecting to love it and I did love aspects of it. The character design, sets, and cinematography were great and Rankin/Bass fans will not be disappointed by those things. The music was fine, especially the opening sequence, but also left much to be desired. There weren't really any catchy, unforgettable songs that one usually finds on a Rankin/Bass production.
While there were some funny moments and some parts of the story were interesting, it seems that the film was mostly a series of kooky gags. Don't get me wrong, I love that kind of humor, but it needed to be supported by more plot than was provided. Often it was easy to forget that there even was one. I think Mad Monster Party would have benefited from cutting some scenes to make it a 45 minute special rather than feature length.
I went into this movie wondering why I hadn't heard of it until recently and why it wasn't a Halloween staple of my youth like "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" or "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" were for Christmas. After finishing it I had my answer. It was a little too grown up for children (and maybe a bit too boring) and didn't have enough substance for adults.
While it's hard to recommend this one to anyone I probably will be watching it again. The good parts are good enough to bring me back and the bad isn't bad enough to scare me away (and now I know which scenes to avoid).
I also realize that this has a lot of jokes directed at the readers of Mad Magazine, which I am not. So feel free to prove me wrong about this movie. I really want to love it!
While there were some funny moments and some parts of the story were interesting, it seems that the film was mostly a series of kooky gags. Don't get me wrong, I love that kind of humor, but it needed to be supported by more plot than was provided. Often it was easy to forget that there even was one. I think Mad Monster Party would have benefited from cutting some scenes to make it a 45 minute special rather than feature length.
I went into this movie wondering why I hadn't heard of it until recently and why it wasn't a Halloween staple of my youth like "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" or "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" were for Christmas. After finishing it I had my answer. It was a little too grown up for children (and maybe a bit too boring) and didn't have enough substance for adults.
While it's hard to recommend this one to anyone I probably will be watching it again. The good parts are good enough to bring me back and the bad isn't bad enough to scare me away (and now I know which scenes to avoid).
I also realize that this has a lot of jokes directed at the readers of Mad Magazine, which I am not. So feel free to prove me wrong about this movie. I really want to love it!
Sid Krofft recommended The Wizard of Oz (1939) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Oct 17, 2021
I can safely say, that I'm not 100% sure whether I liked Halloween Kills or not. There were parts that I genuinely enjoyed, in no small part thanks to Michael Myers. As in Halloween (2018), this Myers is a brutal and unforgiving one. His aesthetic is great and he's intimidating as fuck. This movie pulls no punches in making him out to be a monster, shying further away from the days of rooting for slasher villains. To top it off, Kills easily has some of the best Michael moments in the entire franchise. This is bolstered by some truly fantastic cinematography.
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Love and Monsters (2021) in Movies
Apr 18, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Love and monsters is quite a slow paced film about a journey and a character. Joel starts the film as a bit of a looser, he feels out of place and unneeded so he sets out to find the one person he thinks will appreciate him and, as he movers through the world he begins to find himself, a purpose and the meaning of family.
In some ways, Love and Monsters reminded me of 'Zombie land', we have some one who is just trying to find his place and his way in world that changed, he has to rely on the help of others whilst finding the right rules to help him survive. Of course the biggest difference is that there are monsters instead of Zombies.
Talking of the monsters, the effects are pretty good, the monsters are not all horrific and are pretty realistic. They help set the tone and pace in the film, providing threat, humour and atmosphere and it's nice to see that some of them just want to get on with their own lives.
Another thing that was nice to see was that (most of) the humans were also just trying to live, there weren't any 'Neagan's' or camps of overly aggressive thugs as you get used to seeing in a lot of post apocalyptic movies, which came as a bit as a surprise, I was expecting there to be something odd about the meeting between Joel and Aimee but, even though it doesn't necessarily go according to plan it still works out in a nice way.
And that's the thing, Love and Monsters is quite a nice film. The characters want to survive and even in a world populated by monsters that eat people the survivors find love and purpose, yes there are people who are just out for themselves, who are willing to steal and feed others to the monsters but they are in the minority.
The only really odd thing in this film are the Mav1s', there is not really anything to explain them.
Love and Monsters is no 'Godzilla', there are no monster v monster fights. and it's no 'A Quite Place' the monsters aren't necessarily hunting the survivors for anything other than food and this isn't a horror movie, it's a film about growth, love and family and man eating bugs.
In some ways, Love and Monsters reminded me of 'Zombie land', we have some one who is just trying to find his place and his way in world that changed, he has to rely on the help of others whilst finding the right rules to help him survive. Of course the biggest difference is that there are monsters instead of Zombies.
Talking of the monsters, the effects are pretty good, the monsters are not all horrific and are pretty realistic. They help set the tone and pace in the film, providing threat, humour and atmosphere and it's nice to see that some of them just want to get on with their own lives.
Another thing that was nice to see was that (most of) the humans were also just trying to live, there weren't any 'Neagan's' or camps of overly aggressive thugs as you get used to seeing in a lot of post apocalyptic movies, which came as a bit as a surprise, I was expecting there to be something odd about the meeting between Joel and Aimee but, even though it doesn't necessarily go according to plan it still works out in a nice way.
And that's the thing, Love and Monsters is quite a nice film. The characters want to survive and even in a world populated by monsters that eat people the survivors find love and purpose, yes there are people who are just out for themselves, who are willing to steal and feed others to the monsters but they are in the minority.
The only really odd thing in this film are the Mav1s', there is not really anything to explain them.
Love and Monsters is no 'Godzilla', there are no monster v monster fights. and it's no 'A Quite Place' the monsters aren't necessarily hunting the survivors for anything other than food and this isn't a horror movie, it's a film about growth, love and family and man eating bugs.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Blood on Satan's Claw (1971) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
What's In A Name?
One of the big three British folk-horror movies (along with Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man) and the only one to go for an explicitly supernatural storyline: in 18th century England, a ploughman unearths a deformed skull, which mysteriously disappears soon after. Insanity, mutation and violence begin to spread amongst the young people of the area, forcing the local judge to take extreme measures in the cause of virtue.
On one level this does sound like the broadest kind of exploitative schlock, and it's true that the monster suit at the end is utterly crapulous, but this does not take into account the disturbingly dreamy atmosphere conjured up by director Haggard and Marc Wilkinson's score. There's a touch of the genuine gothic in the way something ancient and disturbing erupts into a quietly bucolic world.
Plus, there is a hard edge of gleeful nastiness to this film which is wholly lacking from the movies being made by Tigon's better-known rivals at Hammer and Amicus during the same period. There's a sense in which most Hammer movies feel like costume dramas with a little blood included as a contractual obligation, but Blood on Satan's Claw goes all-out to mess the viewer up - it's not especially frightening as such, but it's a very unsettling, creepy movie that's a worthy successor to an ancient English tradition of supernatural horror stories.
On one level this does sound like the broadest kind of exploitative schlock, and it's true that the monster suit at the end is utterly crapulous, but this does not take into account the disturbingly dreamy atmosphere conjured up by director Haggard and Marc Wilkinson's score. There's a touch of the genuine gothic in the way something ancient and disturbing erupts into a quietly bucolic world.
Plus, there is a hard edge of gleeful nastiness to this film which is wholly lacking from the movies being made by Tigon's better-known rivals at Hammer and Amicus during the same period. There's a sense in which most Hammer movies feel like costume dramas with a little blood included as a contractual obligation, but Blood on Satan's Claw goes all-out to mess the viewer up - it's not especially frightening as such, but it's a very unsettling, creepy movie that's a worthy successor to an ancient English tradition of supernatural horror stories.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2021 (Updated Mar 11, 2021)
A swing and a miss, to be sure - but boy do I admire what a wide fuckin' swing it is. Norton clearly loves and understands the mechanisms of film noir but translates them into a boiling hot mess. A baffling Frankenstein's monster of hokey performances, grotesque fakey-looking cinematography, trash editing, formless structure, and corny dialogue - you'd think no one here had ever been involved with the moviemaking process before, it's actually bewildering. The ever-dependable (and criminally underrated) Daniel Pemberton's score as well as some fine production are in direct conflict with its shit TV movie visuals - so there ends up being no actual mood here either. Its noble but muddled attempt at reviving the old-school prestige gumshoe epic make it at least mildly diverting oftentimes - but there's a whole lot of people explaining the plot to each other and not a lot of actual character on display. Nothing really feels lived-in, we're told time and time again how much we're supposed to feel for these relationships despite the fact that everyone just kind of bounces in and out only when they're needed to advance the plot with no further development - and its 50s setting it banks so hard on is mere window dressing to peddle the type of plot you've seen a hundred other times in these. Am I supposed to be shocked that urban renewal leaders are greedy, egotistical, and racist?
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Invisible Man Returns (1940) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
See No Evil
The Invisible Man Returns- is a great sequel to "The Invisible Man". I love "The Invisible Man", he is in my opinion the best universal monster. He's funny, dramatic, crazy, and invisible.
The plot: Wrongly accused of murdering his brother, Geoffrey Radcliffe (Vincent Price) is found guilty and sentenced to die. But when sympathetic Dr. Griffin (John Sutton) injects him with a serum that renders him invisible, Radcliffe is able to escape and search for the real culprit. With Inspector Sampson (Cecil Kellaway) of Scotland Yard hot on his trail, Radcliffe begins to suspect that a recent hire in his family's mining company might have the answers he seeks.
Following the commercial success of Son of Frankenstein, Universal Studios announced the development of The Invisible Man Returns in March 1939.
In May, Joe May was announced as the director of the film with either Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi hinted at playing the lead.
Vincent Price when he was not covered by bandages or special effects only appears as himself for one minute in the film. Price spoke on the film saying that the special effects were done with Price being draped in black velvet and working against a set draped in black velvet. Price also spoke about working with Hardwicke, who he recalled "didn't like doing this film; he was facing home problems at the time. We became very close."
Its a great movie.
The plot: Wrongly accused of murdering his brother, Geoffrey Radcliffe (Vincent Price) is found guilty and sentenced to die. But when sympathetic Dr. Griffin (John Sutton) injects him with a serum that renders him invisible, Radcliffe is able to escape and search for the real culprit. With Inspector Sampson (Cecil Kellaway) of Scotland Yard hot on his trail, Radcliffe begins to suspect that a recent hire in his family's mining company might have the answers he seeks.
Following the commercial success of Son of Frankenstein, Universal Studios announced the development of The Invisible Man Returns in March 1939.
In May, Joe May was announced as the director of the film with either Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi hinted at playing the lead.
Vincent Price when he was not covered by bandages or special effects only appears as himself for one minute in the film. Price spoke on the film saying that the special effects were done with Price being draped in black velvet and working against a set draped in black velvet. Price also spoke about working with Hardwicke, who he recalled "didn't like doing this film; he was facing home problems at the time. We became very close."
Its a great movie.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Train to Busan (2016) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Oct 22, 2020)
Thrillingly Unique and Entertaining Addition to the Zombie Film
Contains spoilers, click to show
This movie was great and the unique concept of having the survivors on a train was different from any zombie I've ever seen. Seok-woo is a divorced business man who never has time for his daughter, whose only wish for her birthday is to see her mother. After reluctantly agreeing to take her by train a zombie apocalypse occurs and they have to survive on the train. The scenes on the train were pretty amazing and really intense. Having to fight zombies in close quarters at times with no weapons made them incredibly tense, especially the ones where they had to sneak past them in the dark. As I said before a big thing that bothered me was that in certain scenes it appeared as if the zombies didn't actually attack the people to eat them but just bite them spreading the virus like World War Z. This was a serious let down for me in World War Z and the only reason I didn't make a bigger deal about it in this one is because there were scenes where a zombie was scene eating someone one that's already on the ground and also where they swarm someone who was already bitten, more than likely eating them. See to me the two greatest reasons why zombie are scary and so popular is because they combine two big fears that people have on a primal way. 1 is the fear of death and the dead, people don't want to die of course, but people are also afraid of dead things, dead people, animals etc.. And then 2 being eaten alive. That I think is something nobody would even wish on their worst enemy, so that's why zombies are such a scary movie monster. But when you change them to being infected instead of reanimated corpses and instead of eating the living they are trying to spread a disease by biting people and not eating them, it takes away from the horror part of it. I really liked the scene where the man with the pregnant wife, Seok-woo and the young baseball player gear up to make their way to the back cars to save their family members. I also liked the special effects used, everything except that deer in the beginning of the movie, which wasn't that terrible in the big scope of things but it reminded me of that prairie dog in the beginning of Crystal Skull (which was big red flag for that film). I have to say that this was really one of the better zombie films out there and I hear there is an animated prequel that was realized a month later and now talks about a sequel. I give this movie a 7/10.