Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the 1980’s the so- called slasher film genre was in full swing. When Michael Myers and the “Halloween” franchise became the highest grossing independent film in cinema history, the studios scrambled to get in on the booming genre and unleashed a flood of psycho killers on the viewing public, for the better part of a decade and a half.
Along with the aforementioned Michael Myers, and the later Freddy Krueger from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, Jason Voorhees of the “Friday The 13Th” series has become a cultural landmark. He has appeared in over ten movies (eleven if you count “Freddy Vs. Jason”) and unleashed havoc on countless oversexed and loaded teens, as well as those unfortunate enough to cross his path.
While the series, to many fans, become stale and largely self mocking with the Jason-in-space themed “Jason X”, the character rebounded nicely with “Freddy Vs. Jason” and had many fans clamoring for a second match up between the two iconic bad guys.
Eventually the powers-that-be decided to go the remake route, which had proven successful with “Halloween” and “My Bloody Valentine”, and have crafted a new “Friday the 13th” which they hope will re-energize the series.
The film opens with a modern re-telling of what was part of the finale of the original film, and hits the ground running with an impressive opening sequence that has Jason menacing a group of teens camping in the woods. The intense first twenty minutes of the film had the audience at the test screening gasping and cheering as the events set the stage for the body of the film, which revolves around another group of young adults taking a trip into the woods for a scenic getaway.
As the group stops for supplies, they encounter a young man who is looking for his sister who vanished in the area six weeks earlier. Despite little luck in his search, and the insistence by the local police that his sister is not anywhere in the area, he remains undaunted and continues his search.
At the same time, the group of young adults embarks on a frenzy of sex, drinking, drugs, and carefree living in the woods unaware that they are about to gain the attention of Camp Crystal Lake’s most infamous former camper.
As the film unfolds, Jason soon unleashes his customary brutality on the group as well as any townies that come across him, and the film deftly mixes some humor with classic horror mayhem. In the time honored formula, a group of survivors soon finds themselves under siege by Jason and must find a way to survive Jason’s wrath.
While the film lacks much in the way of plot and is loaded with a cast of largely unknowns, the film is a refreshing update to the series, knowing what the fans have come to expect and providing plenty of gore and scares. Since the cast exists to be little more than fodder for Jason, there is little effort devoted to fleshing them out as characters other than to provide excuses for most of the ladies in the film to shed their clothes, and a few of the male cast to establish themselves as comic relief, or the jerk who is destined for something special.
Director Marcus Nispel who has a solid pedigree with the recent “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, viral videos of Resident Evil 5, as well as the pending “Alice.” He clearly knows his subject matter and working with Producer Michael Bay and a script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (the duo behind “Freddy vs. Jason”), produced a solid by the numbers horror film.
Fans of the series will note clever references to the past films such as Jason’s original mask and will find themselves yelling at the screen over the constant stupidity of the victims as well as the inventive way Jason dispatches his victims. I found myself enjoying the updated Jason because while the movie is faithful to the character, it revitalized him to show a more cunning predator who is not above using traps, bait, and plotting to achieve his means. There was a plot thread in the film that did not really get developed as much as I had hoped, but in the end, the film delivered the goods and sets the stage well for future outings of the machete-wielding Jason.
Along with the aforementioned Michael Myers, and the later Freddy Krueger from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, Jason Voorhees of the “Friday The 13Th” series has become a cultural landmark. He has appeared in over ten movies (eleven if you count “Freddy Vs. Jason”) and unleashed havoc on countless oversexed and loaded teens, as well as those unfortunate enough to cross his path.
While the series, to many fans, become stale and largely self mocking with the Jason-in-space themed “Jason X”, the character rebounded nicely with “Freddy Vs. Jason” and had many fans clamoring for a second match up between the two iconic bad guys.
Eventually the powers-that-be decided to go the remake route, which had proven successful with “Halloween” and “My Bloody Valentine”, and have crafted a new “Friday the 13th” which they hope will re-energize the series.
The film opens with a modern re-telling of what was part of the finale of the original film, and hits the ground running with an impressive opening sequence that has Jason menacing a group of teens camping in the woods. The intense first twenty minutes of the film had the audience at the test screening gasping and cheering as the events set the stage for the body of the film, which revolves around another group of young adults taking a trip into the woods for a scenic getaway.
As the group stops for supplies, they encounter a young man who is looking for his sister who vanished in the area six weeks earlier. Despite little luck in his search, and the insistence by the local police that his sister is not anywhere in the area, he remains undaunted and continues his search.
At the same time, the group of young adults embarks on a frenzy of sex, drinking, drugs, and carefree living in the woods unaware that they are about to gain the attention of Camp Crystal Lake’s most infamous former camper.
As the film unfolds, Jason soon unleashes his customary brutality on the group as well as any townies that come across him, and the film deftly mixes some humor with classic horror mayhem. In the time honored formula, a group of survivors soon finds themselves under siege by Jason and must find a way to survive Jason’s wrath.
While the film lacks much in the way of plot and is loaded with a cast of largely unknowns, the film is a refreshing update to the series, knowing what the fans have come to expect and providing plenty of gore and scares. Since the cast exists to be little more than fodder for Jason, there is little effort devoted to fleshing them out as characters other than to provide excuses for most of the ladies in the film to shed their clothes, and a few of the male cast to establish themselves as comic relief, or the jerk who is destined for something special.
Director Marcus Nispel who has a solid pedigree with the recent “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, viral videos of Resident Evil 5, as well as the pending “Alice.” He clearly knows his subject matter and working with Producer Michael Bay and a script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (the duo behind “Freddy vs. Jason”), produced a solid by the numbers horror film.
Fans of the series will note clever references to the past films such as Jason’s original mask and will find themselves yelling at the screen over the constant stupidity of the victims as well as the inventive way Jason dispatches his victims. I found myself enjoying the updated Jason because while the movie is faithful to the character, it revitalized him to show a more cunning predator who is not above using traps, bait, and plotting to achieve his means. There was a plot thread in the film that did not really get developed as much as I had hoped, but in the end, the film delivered the goods and sets the stage well for future outings of the machete-wielding Jason.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Dec 17, 2019
During the opening credits of Jojo Rabbit, we're treated to The Beatles singing "I Want to Hold Your Hand" while documentary footage plays showing crowds of Germans going absolutely nuts for Hitler, sieg-heiling and cheering for him. It's a fairly good indication of the kind of humour you can expect from Jojo Rabbit and writer/director Taika Waititi, who hit the big time after directing 'Thor Ragnarok', but has previously been responsible for a wide range of brilliantly quirky movies such as 'What We Do in the Shadows' and 'Hunt for the Wilderpeople'.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Nov 25, 2017
Beauty and the Plot Holes
I know I shouldn't be looking to much in to animated movies turned in to live action, but this movie really had some obvious plot holes. I will get to a few of those in a bit. First I would like to say this was not a bad movie. I actually enjoyed it more then I thought I would have. The CGI was really good and the music/songs were done really well and really funny.
This movie played really closely to the animated movie. The beginning of the movie was one of the thing I felt was really off. I did not like the party being the back drop to him being a stuck up snob. I would have preferred him just turning the old lady away at the door and then getting cursed. I also thought all of the people turned into household objects were servants in the castle and not just party guests. Then at the end of the movie you have the household objects mingling with towns folks. I know they had to do it with how the beginning of the movie was set up, but it was really weird.
As I stated earlier I really like the CGI, I thought it fit in really well with the live actors. The Beast looked amazing, it had a very life like look to it. All of the household objects looked fantastic as well. They way they moved in the scenes, it did not feel computerized at all.
Now I know most of you have probably seen the animated movie and hopefully most of you have seen this movie. But one thing I like doing when I am watching a remake or know the story really well, I like to find the plot holes that are really funny and I will mention a few here. First is I like the fact they are in France and only say a few french words. I know its supposed to be a kids movie and most of them don't want to read subtitles, but at least give them all an accent. The only one with an accent was the candle holder. Second I would like to point out during the whole movie to and from the castle there were wolves that were ready to attack onsite. But when Belle headed back to the village to save her dad the Beast was not concerned at all about the wolves getting her. Last I would like to say that with how dangerous everything in the woods were Belle's dad left the horse behind at the castle even though he new about the wolves and how far away it was. Also there was the fact that if Belle was going to be there forever, why does she even need the horse.
Well this was a fun movie and think everyone should see it, maybe with a kid in the room so it is not weird. Until next time, enjoy the show.
This movie played really closely to the animated movie. The beginning of the movie was one of the thing I felt was really off. I did not like the party being the back drop to him being a stuck up snob. I would have preferred him just turning the old lady away at the door and then getting cursed. I also thought all of the people turned into household objects were servants in the castle and not just party guests. Then at the end of the movie you have the household objects mingling with towns folks. I know they had to do it with how the beginning of the movie was set up, but it was really weird.
As I stated earlier I really like the CGI, I thought it fit in really well with the live actors. The Beast looked amazing, it had a very life like look to it. All of the household objects looked fantastic as well. They way they moved in the scenes, it did not feel computerized at all.
Now I know most of you have probably seen the animated movie and hopefully most of you have seen this movie. But one thing I like doing when I am watching a remake or know the story really well, I like to find the plot holes that are really funny and I will mention a few here. First is I like the fact they are in France and only say a few french words. I know its supposed to be a kids movie and most of them don't want to read subtitles, but at least give them all an accent. The only one with an accent was the candle holder. Second I would like to point out during the whole movie to and from the castle there were wolves that were ready to attack onsite. But when Belle headed back to the village to save her dad the Beast was not concerned at all about the wolves getting her. Last I would like to say that with how dangerous everything in the woods were Belle's dad left the horse behind at the castle even though he new about the wolves and how far away it was. Also there was the fact that if Belle was going to be there forever, why does she even need the horse.
Well this was a fun movie and think everyone should see it, maybe with a kid in the room so it is not weird. Until next time, enjoy the show.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Pete’s Dragon is a staple of my childhood. It was one of the three movies I would always choose to watch. So, naturally, I was a little worried when I heard about the new movie earlier this year. The teaser trailer didn’t give much to go by, but it looked promising. I trying something new this year where I do not watch anything beyond the teaser trailer (believe me, it’s killing me not to watch the new Rogue One trailer), so that’s all I had going into this. And I was pleasantly surprised.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Return of The King
The Lion King is a 2019 computer-animated musical movie directed and produced by Jon Favreau. It was written by Jeff Nathanson, and produced by Fairview Entertainment and Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyonce and James Earl Jones.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
I’ve always been a fan of Stephen King movies, even some of those that were not particularly good or well received. For someone who is a fan you think that would inspire me to pick up at least one of his books to get a feel for what the author truly intended over the stripped down,
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Point Blank (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Point Blank starts when emergency room nurse Paul (Mackie) is preparing to have his first child with his wife Taryn (Parris), she is due within weeks, but she gets kidnapped by Mateo (Cooke) who wants Paul to help his injured brother Abe (Grillo) escape from the emergency room after being accused of murdering the DA.
Paul and Abe go on the run with LT Lewis (Harden) tracking them down as we see just who was really behind the murder of the DA.
Thoughts on Point Blank
Characters – Paul is an emergency room nurse, he is married and about to start his family, his life is exactly where he wants it. His life takes a big change one this day when he gets forced to help a murder suspect escape from the hospital to save his pregnant wife, meaning he will need to start breaking the law to save her. Abe is the gun for hire that has been injured in the incident, he is the prime suspect and is being set up, where his brother is trying to help him escape, he is street smart and has connections in the criminal world which will help him stay ahead of the law. LT Lewis is the one trying to track down the pair trying to put away the person that killed the DA. Mateo is the brother of Abe that has gone to the extremes to try and get his brother out of custody.
Performances – Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo do everything they can with this film, Grillo is starting make a name for himself in the trashing action films now, where he can play the bad boy with ease, Mackie doesn’t do much that you wouldn’t expect from him here though. Marcia Gay Harden gives us the basic cop figure, while Christian Cooke completes the main cast with a basic enough performance.
Story – The story here follows an emergency nurse that must help a murder suspect to save his kidnapped wife. This is a basic story which I always say is all you need for action at times, this is a remake of a French film, but we are lacking that one thing a good action film needs a villain that feels like a threat, we do get many suspects to who the villain might be because it is clear that Abe never committed a crime. We get moments of the unlikely couple needing to work together only for them to not have enough conflict about what is happening. This is basic storytelling that just never gets intense enough to the level it could do.
Action – The action involved in the film is the highlight of the film, even if a lot is basic, it does bring the film to life with the car chases involved.
Settings – The film is set in a big city which does help us understand how many people can be getting crimes done with ease.
Scene of the Movie – Big D
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough villain potential.
Final Thoughts – This is a mostly by the book action film that just doesn’t get going.
Overall: Forgettable Action Film.
Paul and Abe go on the run with LT Lewis (Harden) tracking them down as we see just who was really behind the murder of the DA.
Thoughts on Point Blank
Characters – Paul is an emergency room nurse, he is married and about to start his family, his life is exactly where he wants it. His life takes a big change one this day when he gets forced to help a murder suspect escape from the hospital to save his pregnant wife, meaning he will need to start breaking the law to save her. Abe is the gun for hire that has been injured in the incident, he is the prime suspect and is being set up, where his brother is trying to help him escape, he is street smart and has connections in the criminal world which will help him stay ahead of the law. LT Lewis is the one trying to track down the pair trying to put away the person that killed the DA. Mateo is the brother of Abe that has gone to the extremes to try and get his brother out of custody.
Performances – Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo do everything they can with this film, Grillo is starting make a name for himself in the trashing action films now, where he can play the bad boy with ease, Mackie doesn’t do much that you wouldn’t expect from him here though. Marcia Gay Harden gives us the basic cop figure, while Christian Cooke completes the main cast with a basic enough performance.
Story – The story here follows an emergency nurse that must help a murder suspect to save his kidnapped wife. This is a basic story which I always say is all you need for action at times, this is a remake of a French film, but we are lacking that one thing a good action film needs a villain that feels like a threat, we do get many suspects to who the villain might be because it is clear that Abe never committed a crime. We get moments of the unlikely couple needing to work together only for them to not have enough conflict about what is happening. This is basic storytelling that just never gets intense enough to the level it could do.
Action – The action involved in the film is the highlight of the film, even if a lot is basic, it does bring the film to life with the car chases involved.
Settings – The film is set in a big city which does help us understand how many people can be getting crimes done with ease.
Scene of the Movie – Big D
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough villain potential.
Final Thoughts – This is a mostly by the book action film that just doesn’t get going.
Overall: Forgettable Action Film.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Rabid (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Rose is the quiet assistant to a fashion designer, she has her own ideas that she does want to see made, the girls come to her to get small adjustments, but the designer treats her like a carpet. She isn’t seen in the same light as the models and often keeps to herself. She gets involved in an accident which first sees her horribly disfigured and secondly lose her job, desperate to fix this, she turns to an experimental procedure which fixes everything, giving her a new lease for life and a taste for blood. Brad is one of the co-workers that does try to help Rose come out of her shell by inviting her to the party before the accident. Chelsea is the foster sister to Rose that has been working with her too, she is the one that opens up her home after the accident, helping her get back on her feet, supporting her through the treatment, not looking away like most the others in her life would.
Performances – Laura Vandervoort does give us a strong performance throughout, being able to balance the losing her mind and determined personality. Hanneke Talbot is strong too and the supportive friend, that does get to show the pushy personality her character has around Rose. Benjamin Hollingsworth does show us a strong friend or potential love interest in the film, while big names like Stephen McHattie and C.M. Punk make entertaining supporting appearance.
Story – The story here follows a young lady that sees her life turned upside down after an accident leaves her disfigured, only for an experiment procedure bringing out a new version of herself and an unwanted side effect along the way. This is a remake and one story that can remain similar is places, while bringing the social side of the film to new heights, the fashion world does make a wonderful backdrop for the story because it reflects the world that image needs to be fix with surgery. There are certain ways the story does feel weaker, that is mostly seeing how everything is spreading, which is important, but it doesn’t follow Rose, which is the important side of the story.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror side of the film comes from the real world situation that Rose goes through, with the accident before hitting the graphic violence of what is happening to Rose, which is also the sci-fi side of the film, the changes Rose goes through.
Settings – The film uses the fashion world as the main settings backdrop, it shows us just how important image is to Rose and the people close to her.
Special Effects – The complete highlight of this film comes from the practical effects, which look as graphic as they can, the injury suffered by Rose is one of the worst wounds you will see in this year’s horror films. We should give a shout out to the team (According to IMDB) Graham Chivers, Jeff Derushie, Anahita Loghmanifar, Emily O’Quinn and Omar Roessler
Scene of the Movie – The first reveal from the injury.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do move away from Rose, as the bigger problems spread around the city, we could have been given more fear from not seeing this, only hearing about it.
Final Thoughts – This is a practical effects masterclass in horror, it will use some of the best you will see this year even if the story is a modernised look at a cult classic.
Overall: Bloody graphic horror.
Performances – Laura Vandervoort does give us a strong performance throughout, being able to balance the losing her mind and determined personality. Hanneke Talbot is strong too and the supportive friend, that does get to show the pushy personality her character has around Rose. Benjamin Hollingsworth does show us a strong friend or potential love interest in the film, while big names like Stephen McHattie and C.M. Punk make entertaining supporting appearance.
Story – The story here follows a young lady that sees her life turned upside down after an accident leaves her disfigured, only for an experiment procedure bringing out a new version of herself and an unwanted side effect along the way. This is a remake and one story that can remain similar is places, while bringing the social side of the film to new heights, the fashion world does make a wonderful backdrop for the story because it reflects the world that image needs to be fix with surgery. There are certain ways the story does feel weaker, that is mostly seeing how everything is spreading, which is important, but it doesn’t follow Rose, which is the important side of the story.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror side of the film comes from the real world situation that Rose goes through, with the accident before hitting the graphic violence of what is happening to Rose, which is also the sci-fi side of the film, the changes Rose goes through.
Settings – The film uses the fashion world as the main settings backdrop, it shows us just how important image is to Rose and the people close to her.
Special Effects – The complete highlight of this film comes from the practical effects, which look as graphic as they can, the injury suffered by Rose is one of the worst wounds you will see in this year’s horror films. We should give a shout out to the team (According to IMDB) Graham Chivers, Jeff Derushie, Anahita Loghmanifar, Emily O’Quinn and Omar Roessler
Scene of the Movie – The first reveal from the injury.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do move away from Rose, as the bigger problems spread around the city, we could have been given more fear from not seeing this, only hearing about it.
Final Thoughts – This is a practical effects masterclass in horror, it will use some of the best you will see this year even if the story is a modernised look at a cult classic.
Overall: Bloody graphic horror.
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not going to lie, the trailer for this worried me greatly. Despite Emily Blunt's roots her accent sounds like someone's stereotypical idea of a prim and proper British nanny, it stuck out like a sore thumb from the trailer.
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?