Search
Search results
Fake-A-Call ™
Entertainment and Utilities
App
☆ Now you can fake outgoing phone calls too! Complete with 'fake answerer' recordings! ☆ This...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Machete (2010) in Movies
Jul 27, 2020
B-Movie Exploitation Film
Machete- is a intresting B-Movie Exploitation action film. I like how Machete was in Spy Kids and that film was PG and now this film is R. Just like how he want easy and really did no killing in spy kids and in this one is full blooded revenge person.
Instead, during the filming of Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse, Rodriguez shot lobby cards and sequences from parts of the original script in 2006 for a fake trailer featuring Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin, and Jeff Fahey.
Jessica Alba won a Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actress, along with her other roles in The Killer Inside Me, Little Fockers and Valentine's Day.
The plot: After nearly being killed during a violent fight with a powerful drug lord, a former Mexican Federale known as Machete (Danny Trejo) roams Texas streets as a vigilante and sometime day-laborer. Hired to perform a covert hit, he is double-crossed and forced to go on the run. Machete may be down, but not out, and he carves a path of blood, bullets and broken hearts in his quest to settle the score.
The supporting cast is intresting and never thought that this people would work together. For Example Steven Seagal, Linsday Lohan, Don Johnson and Robert De Niro all working together. Never thought that any of these people would work together. Well i could see Don Johnson and Robert De Niro working together. But the rest, nope. But it did and it actually worked really well.
Its a fun action B-Movie exploitation film.
Instead, during the filming of Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse, Rodriguez shot lobby cards and sequences from parts of the original script in 2006 for a fake trailer featuring Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin, and Jeff Fahey.
Jessica Alba won a Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actress, along with her other roles in The Killer Inside Me, Little Fockers and Valentine's Day.
The plot: After nearly being killed during a violent fight with a powerful drug lord, a former Mexican Federale known as Machete (Danny Trejo) roams Texas streets as a vigilante and sometime day-laborer. Hired to perform a covert hit, he is double-crossed and forced to go on the run. Machete may be down, but not out, and he carves a path of blood, bullets and broken hearts in his quest to settle the score.
The supporting cast is intresting and never thought that this people would work together. For Example Steven Seagal, Linsday Lohan, Don Johnson and Robert De Niro all working together. Never thought that any of these people would work together. Well i could see Don Johnson and Robert De Niro working together. But the rest, nope. But it did and it actually worked really well.
Its a fun action B-Movie exploitation film.
Zombie Derby 2
Games and Entertainment
App
Tired of the same old shooters and hundreds of tedious titles? Don't miss the long-awaited sequel of...
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
8.9
Rate It
Movie Watch
Avengers: Endgame is an upcoming American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics superhero team...
Her Sister's Lie
7.0
Rate It
Book
In this riveting psychological thriller, the international bestselling author of The Bones of You...
mystery thriller
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005) in Movies
Apr 27, 2022
The Hellraiser franchise has certainly hit some low notes by the eight entry in the series, but you know what? Hellworld ain't one of those low notes, and this a hill I am willing to die on.
It's without a doubt, the cheesiest Hellraiser thus far, and the first one to really lean into the dumb, sex-crazed teenager horror usually associated with slashers. It kind of works. There's a bit of an identity crisis going on. It's part slasher (complete with an I Know What You Did Last Summer set up), part typical Hellraiser, part Saw (this was the mid 00s after all), part haunted house horror. Suffice to say, there's a lot going on, and the plot even manages a semi decent twist during the climax which is a rarity with these later entries. It sometimes feels a bit muddled but most importantly, it's something different at this point! 5-7 all feel VERY similar so I can respect the fresh angle Hellworld was aiming for. Throw Lance Henriksen into the mix, alongside a returning Doug Bradley (unfortunately with little screentime yet again), and some early roles from Henry Cavill, Katheryn Winnick, and Khary Payton, and you have a pretty solid cast doing their best to traverse a typical low budget horror script. When all is said and done, it ain't too shabby, and even has the courtesy to include some memorable gore, and brings back the much loved Chatterer.
Hellworld is way more entertaining than it has any right to be, and is easily the best of the Rick Bota trilogy, which isn't exactly a high bar to clear, granted. Either way, it deserves more love!
It's without a doubt, the cheesiest Hellraiser thus far, and the first one to really lean into the dumb, sex-crazed teenager horror usually associated with slashers. It kind of works. There's a bit of an identity crisis going on. It's part slasher (complete with an I Know What You Did Last Summer set up), part typical Hellraiser, part Saw (this was the mid 00s after all), part haunted house horror. Suffice to say, there's a lot going on, and the plot even manages a semi decent twist during the climax which is a rarity with these later entries. It sometimes feels a bit muddled but most importantly, it's something different at this point! 5-7 all feel VERY similar so I can respect the fresh angle Hellworld was aiming for. Throw Lance Henriksen into the mix, alongside a returning Doug Bradley (unfortunately with little screentime yet again), and some early roles from Henry Cavill, Katheryn Winnick, and Khary Payton, and you have a pretty solid cast doing their best to traverse a typical low budget horror script. When all is said and done, it ain't too shabby, and even has the courtesy to include some memorable gore, and brings back the much loved Chatterer.
Hellworld is way more entertaining than it has any right to be, and is easily the best of the Rick Bota trilogy, which isn't exactly a high bar to clear, granted. Either way, it deserves more love!
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Mekkin B. (122 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Oct 9, 2017
Boring male power fantasy with little to no character development
It's hard to tell who is meant to be the protagonist of this film, the young boy, Jake, or the Gunslinger. Sure, we're introduced to Jake first, and only really meet the Gunslinger towards the end of Act 1, which should signal that it's Jake.
But Jake is boring. SO BORING. He doesn't really have any character flaws. Oh sure, he has problems, expositionally convenient plot device "visions", but no real, tangible character elements. He reacts violently towards another kid at school, but this isn't treated as a flaw and this isn't a movie where Jake is going to learn that there's a better solution than violence. At best he's going to learn that it's bad to use your fists to solve problems - guns are much more efficient.
The Gunslinger is presented with all the hallmarks of a protagonist. He's got a defined past and a defined character flaw. He's consumed with thoughts of revenge and will let the world burn around him to get it. The problem is, the story never gives him a point where he actually has to make a choice between revenge and something better.
The villain, while fun, seems to have no internal motivation whatsoever. Why does he want to destroy the universe? Because that's what semi-omnipotent bad guys want to do, I guess.
And I get it, he's called the Gunslinger, he shoots guns. It's all very straightforward. But that doesn't mean it's not still kind of boring to watch EVERY problem they encounter get solved by just shooting at it enough while every single woman in the movie exists to be murdered, assaulted, and grossly sexualized by the villain.
It used every trope in the book, it used them badly, and the script was just...not good.
But Jake is boring. SO BORING. He doesn't really have any character flaws. Oh sure, he has problems, expositionally convenient plot device "visions", but no real, tangible character elements. He reacts violently towards another kid at school, but this isn't treated as a flaw and this isn't a movie where Jake is going to learn that there's a better solution than violence. At best he's going to learn that it's bad to use your fists to solve problems - guns are much more efficient.
The Gunslinger is presented with all the hallmarks of a protagonist. He's got a defined past and a defined character flaw. He's consumed with thoughts of revenge and will let the world burn around him to get it. The problem is, the story never gives him a point where he actually has to make a choice between revenge and something better.
The villain, while fun, seems to have no internal motivation whatsoever. Why does he want to destroy the universe? Because that's what semi-omnipotent bad guys want to do, I guess.
And I get it, he's called the Gunslinger, he shoots guns. It's all very straightforward. But that doesn't mean it's not still kind of boring to watch EVERY problem they encounter get solved by just shooting at it enough while every single woman in the movie exists to be murdered, assaulted, and grossly sexualized by the villain.
It used every trope in the book, it used them badly, and the script was just...not good.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Lady Bird (2017) in Movies
Nov 27, 2017
Masterpiece
Set in 2002, Lady Bird is a coming of age story for high school senior Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson. The film follows her pursuit of college while growing up in a low-income family. While that is the main plot, Lady Bird is about so much more. Quite frankly, the movie is perfect. I haven't seem a film this memorable since Boyhood.
Trying to find something wrong with this film is like trying to catch a fly while blinking rapidly. Not only does it do everything right, it does it flawlessly. What impresses me the most is this is Greta Gerwig's directorial debut (who also did the screenplay). For someone to hit a homerun like this on their first try is an incredible thing to consider.
I won't go into too much detail here because I want you go into this with as little knowledge of the film as I, but here are a few things I loved about it. At just ninety-three minutes, Lady Bird carries a consistent pace with an ending that is just too perfect for words. It's going to make you laugh out loud. A lot. It will probably make you tear up a bit as well as it's just as much heartbreaking as it is hilarious. The acting, highlighted by Saiorse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf is stellar through and through. Emotions are captured in a way that what you feel you are seeing is something real, not a script. So real it hits home in a way that might surprise you. Finally, this film gets all the little things right. Those small extra mile touches that add a lasting touch to a film.
As cliche as I have to be in this moment, Lady Bird is a masterpiece. That's why I'm giving it a perfect 100.
Trying to find something wrong with this film is like trying to catch a fly while blinking rapidly. Not only does it do everything right, it does it flawlessly. What impresses me the most is this is Greta Gerwig's directorial debut (who also did the screenplay). For someone to hit a homerun like this on their first try is an incredible thing to consider.
I won't go into too much detail here because I want you go into this with as little knowledge of the film as I, but here are a few things I loved about it. At just ninety-three minutes, Lady Bird carries a consistent pace with an ending that is just too perfect for words. It's going to make you laugh out loud. A lot. It will probably make you tear up a bit as well as it's just as much heartbreaking as it is hilarious. The acting, highlighted by Saiorse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf is stellar through and through. Emotions are captured in a way that what you feel you are seeing is something real, not a script. So real it hits home in a way that might surprise you. Finally, this film gets all the little things right. Those small extra mile touches that add a lasting touch to a film.
As cliche as I have to be in this moment, Lady Bird is a masterpiece. That's why I'm giving it a perfect 100.
Sam (74 KP) rated Aftercare Instructions in Books
Mar 27, 2019
I was actually quite disappointed by this one. I felt like I expected more from it, especially with it dealing with more serious subjects such as abortion right from the start.
The reason I don’t read much YA any more is the way that everything is glazed over and ignored. I feel like Aftercare Instructions had the chance to be a really good, deep novel about an issue that rarely makes it into YA, but in reality, it brushed over it.
I need to point out I only made it 1/3 of the way through before giving up.
Everything seemed to happen slowly and the narration seemed too whiney to be realistic. The main character, Gen is unlikable and annoying. Within the first 1/3 of the book her character is barely built and does nothing other than complain.
The plot didn’t move, and when nothing happens and I’m that far into the book, I know it’s time to give up.
The book is set out with alternating chapters being in a script format laying out the backstory of the characters. The first YA book I read with this format was cute. The second – fun. But when I’ve now read countless YAs set out in this format, it’s much less quirky and now seems a bit like it’s something to do to fill the pages without adding a decent description or trying to set a scene. It’s a space filler and it just ruins YAs for me.
I always hate DNF-ing books from Netgalley, especially ones by new authors but I just felt like this one could have been a lot more than it was, and it just seemed too much like the stereotypical YA I want to avoid reading and that I wish wasn’t taking over the genre lately.
The reason I don’t read much YA any more is the way that everything is glazed over and ignored. I feel like Aftercare Instructions had the chance to be a really good, deep novel about an issue that rarely makes it into YA, but in reality, it brushed over it.
I need to point out I only made it 1/3 of the way through before giving up.
Everything seemed to happen slowly and the narration seemed too whiney to be realistic. The main character, Gen is unlikable and annoying. Within the first 1/3 of the book her character is barely built and does nothing other than complain.
The plot didn’t move, and when nothing happens and I’m that far into the book, I know it’s time to give up.
The book is set out with alternating chapters being in a script format laying out the backstory of the characters. The first YA book I read with this format was cute. The second – fun. But when I’ve now read countless YAs set out in this format, it’s much less quirky and now seems a bit like it’s something to do to fill the pages without adding a decent description or trying to set a scene. It’s a space filler and it just ruins YAs for me.
I always hate DNF-ing books from Netgalley, especially ones by new authors but I just felt like this one could have been a lot more than it was, and it just seemed too much like the stereotypical YA I want to avoid reading and that I wish wasn’t taking over the genre lately.