Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hairspray (2007) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Quite a bizarre entry on the countdown but stick with me and all will become clear.
In the winter of 2007, I went through a hard break-up and believe it or not, the remake of Hairspray really helped me through it.
It wasn’t all plain sailing however; the DVD was bought by my former lover for us to both watch at some point in the future. Alas that wasn’t meant to be and the box sat on my shelf for a couple of weeks completely unloved as I tried to come to terms with my loneliness.
Eventually I decided to pop the DVD on and was blown away by how well written and beautifully acted the whole film was. From John Travolta’s amazing turn as Edna Turnblad to Michelle Pfeiffer’s villainous Velma Von Tussle, it was the cheerful uplift that I so desperately needed at that time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/08/films-that-influenced-me-adam-brannon-2/
In the winter of 2007, I went through a hard break-up and believe it or not, the remake of Hairspray really helped me through it.
It wasn’t all plain sailing however; the DVD was bought by my former lover for us to both watch at some point in the future. Alas that wasn’t meant to be and the box sat on my shelf for a couple of weeks completely unloved as I tried to come to terms with my loneliness.
Eventually I decided to pop the DVD on and was blown away by how well written and beautifully acted the whole film was. From John Travolta’s amazing turn as Edna Turnblad to Michelle Pfeiffer’s villainous Velma Von Tussle, it was the cheerful uplift that I so desperately needed at that time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/08/films-that-influenced-me-adam-brannon-2/
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Brain on Fire (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2020
Susannah comes down with a mystery illness, first she has flu like symptoms and it is mistaken for being hung over, but once the seizures, paranoia and change of personality kicks in, her parents know something is seriously wrong and demand she is admitted to hospital where she will stay until doctors can find out what's wrong.
Before watching this movie I had never heard of Susannah Cahalan nor her illness. I thoroughly enjoyed it though, it was interesting and highlighted the reality that some things can be misdiagnosed so many times before getting to the bottom of things. I did feel the ending was a bit rushed though, it would have been interesting to watch her recovery and how her family coped with that but I guess that would made the movie too long.
I've enjoyed watching chloe grace moretz movies since the Carrie remake and each time she betters herself, she played Susannah very well and made it feel very real. A must watch movie.
Before watching this movie I had never heard of Susannah Cahalan nor her illness. I thoroughly enjoyed it though, it was interesting and highlighted the reality that some things can be misdiagnosed so many times before getting to the bottom of things. I did feel the ending was a bit rushed though, it would have been interesting to watch her recovery and how her family coped with that but I guess that would made the movie too long.
I've enjoyed watching chloe grace moretz movies since the Carrie remake and each time she betters herself, she played Susannah very well and made it feel very real. A must watch movie.
Meg and Jo
6.0
Rate It
Book
The timeless classic Little Women inspired this heartwarming modern tale of four sisters from New...
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Mar 6, 2018 (Updated Mar 6, 2018)
I never fall asleep during films. I fell asleep.
The script and overall plot of this movie did not warrant big name actors like Cruise and Crowe. If anything, I think they played their parts badly and stopped a mediocre script from achieving the levels of mediocrity as a film. Cruise no longer has the charisma to play the cheeky, loveable rogue that this film needed (someone like hmmm Brendan Fraser) - that's not just saying what was needed to make it a decent remake of the "original", but what was needed for this script.
The plot relied on a number of stupid, illogical decisions by the main characters, and a lot of special effects. The aspects of the plot and the Mummy's mission which differed from the Fraser version were not well enough developed or explained to fully embed them in the plot - really, she just fancied Cruise?!
And the plot relied on too many coincidences, the discovery of the crusaders' tomb and the Mummy's tomb being almost exactly at the same time?! Really?!
And finally, the notion that there could be an area of London that is as-yet undiscovered and not covered in graffiti, human faeces and broken bottles is frankly ludicrous.
The plot relied on a number of stupid, illogical decisions by the main characters, and a lot of special effects. The aspects of the plot and the Mummy's mission which differed from the Fraser version were not well enough developed or explained to fully embed them in the plot - really, she just fancied Cruise?!
And the plot relied on too many coincidences, the discovery of the crusaders' tomb and the Mummy's tomb being almost exactly at the same time?! Really?!
And finally, the notion that there could be an area of London that is as-yet undiscovered and not covered in graffiti, human faeces and broken bottles is frankly ludicrous.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated What Men Want (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
What men want... but is it what moviegoers want?
In keeping with the growing trend of gender-swapping reboots, What Men Want is a re-envisioning of the classic rom-com, What Women Want, with Mel Gibson replaced with the charismatic Taraji P. Henson, and a toaster in the bathtub replaced by a drug-dealing psychic.
Yeah...
The premise remains the same: fate intervenes and gives a headstrong, intimidating woman who thinks she's doing a good job of making it in a man's world the power to hear men's thoughts... which quickly shows her she knows nothing at all.
This R-rated comedy has a few laughs, but falls into cringe territory more often than it needs to. It's predictable, which was to be expected, really, given the genre. However, I confess to being pleasantly surprised by it. Certainly not the best comedy I've seen by a long way, but on a par with the Baywatch remake in terms of the level of humour and the assumed target audience.
Taraji P. Henson is great in the lead role, with the supporting cast all doing a solid, if not a little routine job of backing her up. It's the kind of film you go into understanding what you're getting - a few laughs, a few cringes, a lot of inappropriate and suggestive themes and, ultimately, something that makes you forget the real world for a couple of hours. Nothing more, nothing less.
Overall, it's not bad, but it's far from great. This is something you watch on a Friday night when you've had a hard week and your brain needs a rest.
Yeah...
The premise remains the same: fate intervenes and gives a headstrong, intimidating woman who thinks she's doing a good job of making it in a man's world the power to hear men's thoughts... which quickly shows her she knows nothing at all.
This R-rated comedy has a few laughs, but falls into cringe territory more often than it needs to. It's predictable, which was to be expected, really, given the genre. However, I confess to being pleasantly surprised by it. Certainly not the best comedy I've seen by a long way, but on a par with the Baywatch remake in terms of the level of humour and the assumed target audience.
Taraji P. Henson is great in the lead role, with the supporting cast all doing a solid, if not a little routine job of backing her up. It's the kind of film you go into understanding what you're getting - a few laughs, a few cringes, a lot of inappropriate and suggestive themes and, ultimately, something that makes you forget the real world for a couple of hours. Nothing more, nothing less.
Overall, it's not bad, but it's far from great. This is something you watch on a Friday night when you've had a hard week and your brain needs a rest.
Peter G. (247 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
Having seen most of the original and seminal Seven Samurai I can attest that the remakes are very good movies and carry the essence of the original very well without surpassing it.
It maintains the feel of the original western well and allows just about enough of an introduction to each character to become invested, although for others it's all left to the imagination.
If you have seen the original then you already know where the story is going and move on to guessing who survives at the finale.
All in all a good movie from the consistent Antoine Fuqua and an enjoyable watch, although I feel as though this remake didn't have to be remade at all, but Hollywood seems to insist on it these days with its unwillingness to indulge and invest in originality.
It maintains the feel of the original western well and allows just about enough of an introduction to each character to become invested, although for others it's all left to the imagination.
If you have seen the original then you already know where the story is going and move on to guessing who survives at the finale.
All in all a good movie from the consistent Antoine Fuqua and an enjoyable watch, although I feel as though this remake didn't have to be remade at all, but Hollywood seems to insist on it these days with its unwillingness to indulge and invest in originality.
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.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated MediEvil in Video Games
Oct 29, 2019 (Updated Oct 29, 2019)
Classic
I remember playing this game, on the ps1. It was on a demo disk that had a collection of games and this was one of them. I just remember it being so cool and intresting. I havent played it since childhood, i want to play it again. So lets talk about it..
The game is set in the medieval Kingdom of Gallowmere and centres around the charlatan protagonist, Sir Daniel Fortesque, as he makes an attempt to stop antagonist Zarok's invasion of the kingdom whilst simultaneously redeeming himself.
Development began in 1995 at Millenium Interactive in Cambridge under the working title of Dead Man Dan. The visuals are heavily influenced by Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. Originally conceived as an arcade-style shooter for platforms such as Windows and the Sega Saturn, Sony's purchase of SCE Cambridge Studio evolved the game into a PlayStation title.
The game takes place across a variety of levels, many of which require certain objectives to be performed to progress. Sir Daniel Fortesque can use a variety of weapons, consisting of close range weapons such as swords and clubs to long range weapons such as crossbows. When not possessing any items, Dan is able to rip his arm off and use it for both melee and ranged attacks. Dan can equip a shield alongside weapons for defence, but shields have a limited amount of strength and are therefore best used sparingly. Throughout the game, Dan can visit gargoyle heads of two varieties: green ones offer Dan information while blue ones allow Dan to buy services or ammunition by using the treasures he finds.
Lets talk about the plot: In the year 1286, an evil sorcerer named Zarok plotted to take over the kingdom of Gallowmere with his undead army. It is told in legend that the champion, Sir Daniel Fortesque, led the King of Gallowmere's army to victory and managed to kill Zarok before he succumbed to his mortal wounds. In reality, however, Dan was struck down by the first arrow fired in the battle, with the king choosing to cover it up and declare Dan the "Hero of Gallowmere.
It is a classic ps1 underrated game, that people should play, if you havent. Their have recently released it on the ps4. And on that remake you can play the original 1998 game can be unlocked in the remake by completing special objectives. Which is cool.
Lastly shout of to @Kevin Phillipson for getting the hints/clues for this review right.
A must play game.
The game is set in the medieval Kingdom of Gallowmere and centres around the charlatan protagonist, Sir Daniel Fortesque, as he makes an attempt to stop antagonist Zarok's invasion of the kingdom whilst simultaneously redeeming himself.
Development began in 1995 at Millenium Interactive in Cambridge under the working title of Dead Man Dan. The visuals are heavily influenced by Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. Originally conceived as an arcade-style shooter for platforms such as Windows and the Sega Saturn, Sony's purchase of SCE Cambridge Studio evolved the game into a PlayStation title.
The game takes place across a variety of levels, many of which require certain objectives to be performed to progress. Sir Daniel Fortesque can use a variety of weapons, consisting of close range weapons such as swords and clubs to long range weapons such as crossbows. When not possessing any items, Dan is able to rip his arm off and use it for both melee and ranged attacks. Dan can equip a shield alongside weapons for defence, but shields have a limited amount of strength and are therefore best used sparingly. Throughout the game, Dan can visit gargoyle heads of two varieties: green ones offer Dan information while blue ones allow Dan to buy services or ammunition by using the treasures he finds.
Lets talk about the plot: In the year 1286, an evil sorcerer named Zarok plotted to take over the kingdom of Gallowmere with his undead army. It is told in legend that the champion, Sir Daniel Fortesque, led the King of Gallowmere's army to victory and managed to kill Zarok before he succumbed to his mortal wounds. In reality, however, Dan was struck down by the first arrow fired in the battle, with the king choosing to cover it up and declare Dan the "Hero of Gallowmere.
It is a classic ps1 underrated game, that people should play, if you havent. Their have recently released it on the ps4. And on that remake you can play the original 1998 game can be unlocked in the remake by completing special objectives. Which is cool.
Lastly shout of to @Kevin Phillipson for getting the hints/clues for this review right.
A must play game.
One is Come (Five in Circle, #1)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Haylwen doesn’t care who actually blew up the wall of the school library. With a chance to finally...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
Sleepaway Camp 2009
Since its Friday the 13th today, im going to review the remake/reboot of Friday the 13th film. The one that was actually pretty good. The one that was the 12th one. This one continued teenagers being teenagers. The one with Jason as the villian.
The Plot: Against the advice of locals and police, Clay (Jared Padalecki) scours the eerie woods surrounding Crystal Lake for his missing sister. But the rotting cabins of an abandoned summer camp are not the only things he finds. Hockey-masked killer Jason Voorhees lies in wait for a chance to use his razor-sharp machete on Clay and the group of college students who have come to the forest to party.
platinum dunes produce this one, and i actually like their horror remakes, and i think their really underrated.
This one continues to be scary, horrorfying, terrorfying and overall a good friday the 13th film.
The Plot: Against the advice of locals and police, Clay (Jared Padalecki) scours the eerie woods surrounding Crystal Lake for his missing sister. But the rotting cabins of an abandoned summer camp are not the only things he finds. Hockey-masked killer Jason Voorhees lies in wait for a chance to use his razor-sharp machete on Clay and the group of college students who have come to the forest to party.
platinum dunes produce this one, and i actually like their horror remakes, and i think their really underrated.
This one continues to be scary, horrorfying, terrorfying and overall a good friday the 13th film.