Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated Little Monsters (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Shes so cute tho...
387. Little Monsters. Nope it's not a remake of the Fred Savage 80s flick. Instead this is the 'Life Is Beautiful' for the zombie genre. And it was pretty sweet! We meet Dave, a down on his luck musician, broke up with the girl, band broke up, has to live with his sister and her young son. (Dave reminded me of a Andy Dwyer type, Park n Rec fans? Anyone, anyone?) To pull his weight around his sisters house, he takes his nephew, Felix, to school, and there he meets and is instantly infatuated with Felix's teacher Miss Caroline, with reason, she's played by Lupita Nyong'o!! One thing leads to another and Dave finds himself as a chaperone for the next field trip to the local zoo, which just happens to be next to a military research facility, which so happens to be suffering from a zombie outbreak at the time. As you may have guessed these zombies find their way to the zoo, and yep hell breaks loose. However, the kiddos are completely oblivious to this thanks to Miss Caroline convincing them its all just a game! It was a very well done comedy zombie flick. Rounding out the cast is Josh Gad playing a kids tv show host, he is great! Worth the watch!! Filmbufftim on FB
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Black Christmas (2006) in Movies
Aug 20, 2019
False Advertisement
The trailer lied to me and you the auidences. The trailer showed many sences that were not in the movie, nor in the bonus features. So why then even have those sences to beginning with? Well the production company and the distributed wanted to say "hey, you know what? Lets shoot some sences throw them into the trailer but not have them in movie. Lets hype the movie by having sences not even in the movie. So when you see the trailer and than watch the movie. We will be lying to the auidence, but in the end get alot of money for false advertisement".
Also According to Glen Morgan, he and Wong had numerous disputes with Dimension executives Bob and Harvey Weinstein regarding the tone of the script as well as the film's conclusion, which resulted in numerous re-writes and re-shoots. Re-shoots that one of the cast memebers didnt know about and got mad.
The plot: The holiday season turns deadly for a group of sorority sisters (Katie Cassidy, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Lacey Chabert, Michelle Trachtenberg) who are stranded at their campus house during a snowstorm. These coeds better watch out, for a vicious killer is on the loose, and he will not care if they are naughty or nice.
Katie Cassidy and Mary Elizbeth Winstead wasted in this movie.
What im saying is this is a bad movie, not only a bad movie, but a bad reamke. A awful remake.
Also According to Glen Morgan, he and Wong had numerous disputes with Dimension executives Bob and Harvey Weinstein regarding the tone of the script as well as the film's conclusion, which resulted in numerous re-writes and re-shoots. Re-shoots that one of the cast memebers didnt know about and got mad.
The plot: The holiday season turns deadly for a group of sorority sisters (Katie Cassidy, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Lacey Chabert, Michelle Trachtenberg) who are stranded at their campus house during a snowstorm. These coeds better watch out, for a vicious killer is on the loose, and he will not care if they are naughty or nice.
Katie Cassidy and Mary Elizbeth Winstead wasted in this movie.
What im saying is this is a bad movie, not only a bad movie, but a bad reamke. A awful remake.
David Lowery recommended Suspiria (1977) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
This "remake" of the cult classic 80s slasher is actually one of those modern horror soft reboots, that could be considered a sequel, in this case, following on directly from the original, but ignoring any of the original follow ups.
It's probably not accurately, a re-tread of the first four films, all rolled into a slick looking update.
That's precisely what the main positive is. Friday the 13th looks great. It has good production values, largely practical effects when it comes to the nasty stuff, and even boasts a few striking images here and there.
The main man himself, Jason Voorhees, is portrayed here as a kind of hunter, merely protecting his territory, and this time around, he's an absolute beast, he's brutal, he runs, and he is genuinely quote terrifying at times. The film cycles through both his original potato sack look, and his more well know hockey mask look, and actor Derek Mears successfully plays him off as an imposing threat.
The rest of the cast is where Friday the 13th really suffers. With the exception of Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, and Arlen Escarpeta, none of the human characters are remotely likable. I get that the writers were probably going for the whole rooting-for-them-to-die-horribly schtick, but honestly, these characters are so exhausting, non-funny, and irritating that it genuinely makes the bulk of the movie unenjoyable.
There's zero character development, and an unnecessary opening narrative (that lasts 25 minutes) about a separate group of equally unlikable douche bags makes the plot an absolute drag.
I did like the opening scene, that re-tells the climax of the original film in a stylish black and white sequence with the odd flash if colour, and a lot of the Jason action and kills are ridiculous and exciting, and that makes Friday the 13th just about watchable as a dumb-but-entertaining popcorn horror.
Here's hoping the whole rights issue gets sorted soon so someone can try again!
It's probably not accurately, a re-tread of the first four films, all rolled into a slick looking update.
That's precisely what the main positive is. Friday the 13th looks great. It has good production values, largely practical effects when it comes to the nasty stuff, and even boasts a few striking images here and there.
The main man himself, Jason Voorhees, is portrayed here as a kind of hunter, merely protecting his territory, and this time around, he's an absolute beast, he's brutal, he runs, and he is genuinely quote terrifying at times. The film cycles through both his original potato sack look, and his more well know hockey mask look, and actor Derek Mears successfully plays him off as an imposing threat.
The rest of the cast is where Friday the 13th really suffers. With the exception of Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, and Arlen Escarpeta, none of the human characters are remotely likable. I get that the writers were probably going for the whole rooting-for-them-to-die-horribly schtick, but honestly, these characters are so exhausting, non-funny, and irritating that it genuinely makes the bulk of the movie unenjoyable.
There's zero character development, and an unnecessary opening narrative (that lasts 25 minutes) about a separate group of equally unlikable douche bags makes the plot an absolute drag.
I did like the opening scene, that re-tells the climax of the original film in a stylish black and white sequence with the odd flash if colour, and a lot of the Jason action and kills are ridiculous and exciting, and that makes Friday the 13th just about watchable as a dumb-but-entertaining popcorn horror.
Here's hoping the whole rights issue gets sorted soon so someone can try again!
JT (287 KP) rated RoboCop (2014) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Reboot taints the original's good name
If you’re going to remake one of the 80s most iconic action films you’ve got to do it with some balls. Sadly José Padilha dropped this particular ball, pretty spectacularly in fact, to give us a sorry remake and leave fans of the original baying for blood (something which was missing in this).
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Ring (2002) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – Rachel is a single mother and reporter that starts investigating the mysterious death of her niece, this leads her to a VHS tape which puts her in the same seven day warning, forcing her to investigate the tape, she uses her connections and skills as a reporter to unlock this truth, while become more desperate after her son watches the same tape. Noah is the ex-partner and father to Aidan, he is still dating college students, which is why they no longer date, he is however an expect on video, which sees him being used to help break down the tape, which does including him watching it, he doesn’t come off like a nice guy, but we get the scene which shows why he is the way he is. Aidan is the son of the two, he seems to be the most grounded of the three, he is always prepared for the day, knowing that his mother will be late, only he watches the video making him one of the targets for the curse within the video. Richard is the adopted father of Samara, his love for the horses as seen his life destroyed even with his connection to Samara being the reason for the curse.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the leading role is great, she gets to show us just how difficult being a single mother can be, while trying to face a life and death situation with trying to find the answers. Martin Henderson is solid enough in his role which sees him being a bad father that could learn over this week. David Dorfman does give us a creepy kid performance, while Brian Cox in his limited screen time makes a big impact.
Story – The story here follows a reporter that is investigating the death of a family member that is connecting a video tape which will give any viewer seven days to live. This story is a remake of Ringu and does fall into one of my favourite sub-genres of horror, the ghostly haunting investigation one, which is looking to solve a mystery and isn’t afraid to give us a moment of hauntings to push everything in the right direction. It is strange that part of this film has dated with the technology advances which could see the VHS side of the film going over people’s heads, but away from that seeing just how everything is connected, with glimpses of the video appearing through the film needing to be solved by both the character and audience gives this an interesting element for the audience to get involved in.
Horror/Mystery – The horror comes from the horrific imagines we see on the tape, we also know early on what will happen to anybody that watches the tape, by seeing just how the first opening kill looks. The mystery comes from just what we are seeing in the tape, it is a host of clues which will unlock the truth.
Settings – The film shows us the settings through the tape, each one has a connection to everything going on and makes us want to know just what the connection is going to be.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are fantastic to watch, with one of the greatest effects scenes in the closing of the film which will shock and wonder how it was done.
Scene of the Movie – The Horse on the boat is a horrific scene to watch.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – VHS has dated out now.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the greatest horror remakes, it remains scary through the years along with giving us the time scale everything is going to be revealed.
Overall: Wonderful horror remake.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the leading role is great, she gets to show us just how difficult being a single mother can be, while trying to face a life and death situation with trying to find the answers. Martin Henderson is solid enough in his role which sees him being a bad father that could learn over this week. David Dorfman does give us a creepy kid performance, while Brian Cox in his limited screen time makes a big impact.
Story – The story here follows a reporter that is investigating the death of a family member that is connecting a video tape which will give any viewer seven days to live. This story is a remake of Ringu and does fall into one of my favourite sub-genres of horror, the ghostly haunting investigation one, which is looking to solve a mystery and isn’t afraid to give us a moment of hauntings to push everything in the right direction. It is strange that part of this film has dated with the technology advances which could see the VHS side of the film going over people’s heads, but away from that seeing just how everything is connected, with glimpses of the video appearing through the film needing to be solved by both the character and audience gives this an interesting element for the audience to get involved in.
Horror/Mystery – The horror comes from the horrific imagines we see on the tape, we also know early on what will happen to anybody that watches the tape, by seeing just how the first opening kill looks. The mystery comes from just what we are seeing in the tape, it is a host of clues which will unlock the truth.
Settings – The film shows us the settings through the tape, each one has a connection to everything going on and makes us want to know just what the connection is going to be.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are fantastic to watch, with one of the greatest effects scenes in the closing of the film which will shock and wonder how it was done.
Scene of the Movie – The Horse on the boat is a horrific scene to watch.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – VHS has dated out now.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the greatest horror remakes, it remains scary through the years along with giving us the time scale everything is going to be revealed.
Overall: Wonderful horror remake.
Amy Curtis (49 KP) rated Gnome Alone (2018) in Movies
Dec 14, 2018 (Updated Dec 14, 2018)
Funny (1 more)
Easy to watch
Good light-hearted film
Contains spoilers, click to show
I stumbled across this film on Netflix and after seeing Gnomeo and Juliet and being impressed with that I decided to give it a go. I was expecting it to be a remake of the Christmas film Home Alone. I believe that was the original intention. Instead, the protagonist Chloe has recently moved into a new home with her mum and after travelling around and moving schools finds it difficult to make friends and keep them. She discovers a necklace in a secret room in the house and removed it. Later she discovers that the gnomes left in her house are alive and they need the necklace back. With the help of her nerd friend Liam, they combat both high school popular girls and aliens and save the world. Whilst the film does have some comedy in parts, it wasn't as humourous as I was expecting. It is a children's film however and there is an underlying message of 'dont judge a book by it's chsracter', 'be friends with who you want to be friends with' and the ultimate one 'be kind'. I also liked the fact that Chloe was glued to her iPhone and then when push come to shove she had to part with it. I think it gave a good message to modern society today of how absorbed we become with technology (she says writing this review on her smart phone). Anyway, it was a very good film and I thoroughly enjoyed it but it wasn't what I expected in the slightest.