Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Halloween II (1981) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
There's a fair amount to love about Halloween II, a sequel set on the same night as the original, immediately following that films ending.
For instance, I can admire the style that director Rick Rosenthal was going for, attempting to make his sequel feel as much like the first film as possible, the idea being that you could watch both back to back.
There a few creepy shots here and there. One that really sticks is the shot of Michael in the darkness just before the poor nurse get killed with a syringe. Another is Michael on the CCTV when he first enters the hospital. Another is when Laurie see Michael across the parking lot underneath a red light. and then there's Michael with blood running out of the eye holes in his mask, followed by him walking out of that one room completely ablaze. It's all to do with Michael then! Once again, this movie showcases how his straightforward design is striking and rightly iconic.
It's nice to see Jamie Lee Curtis back as Laurie, and Donald Pleasance back as Loomis. All in all, it does truly feel like a sequel, but there's something missing.
The original is one of my favourite horrors ever made, and Halloween II, despite its positives, just fails to capture the same essence. This is partly to do with the script. It feels like a lot of the actors were just told to ad lib all their lines or something. The tension building scenes go on for a little too long also, ironically voiding a few scenes of said tension. It's feels like the first film in everything but execution pretty much.
It's a heavily flawed sequel, but it's still a decent watch, and is certainly one of the better sequels in this long running series. It deserves credit for the bit near the beginning where Loomis shouts "you don't know what death is!" before the synth heavy version of the theme tune kicks in, that was badass.
For instance, I can admire the style that director Rick Rosenthal was going for, attempting to make his sequel feel as much like the first film as possible, the idea being that you could watch both back to back.
There a few creepy shots here and there. One that really sticks is the shot of Michael in the darkness just before the poor nurse get killed with a syringe. Another is Michael on the CCTV when he first enters the hospital. Another is when Laurie see Michael across the parking lot underneath a red light. and then there's Michael with blood running out of the eye holes in his mask, followed by him walking out of that one room completely ablaze. It's all to do with Michael then! Once again, this movie showcases how his straightforward design is striking and rightly iconic.
It's nice to see Jamie Lee Curtis back as Laurie, and Donald Pleasance back as Loomis. All in all, it does truly feel like a sequel, but there's something missing.
The original is one of my favourite horrors ever made, and Halloween II, despite its positives, just fails to capture the same essence. This is partly to do with the script. It feels like a lot of the actors were just told to ad lib all their lines or something. The tension building scenes go on for a little too long also, ironically voiding a few scenes of said tension. It's feels like the first film in everything but execution pretty much.
It's a heavily flawed sequel, but it's still a decent watch, and is certainly one of the better sequels in this long running series. It deserves credit for the bit near the beginning where Loomis shouts "you don't know what death is!" before the synth heavy version of the theme tune kicks in, that was badass.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
If you were to show someone who had never watched a Friday the 13th movie, one single film from the franchise, then Part VI would surely be the one. It does everything that this series aims to do so well - it's easy to see why it's such a fan favourite.
Part VI marks the turning point into supernatural territory. Jason is back properly this time, risen from the grave, essentially a zombie, and even more unkillable than he was before. In the entries preceding this one, Jason has always been an imposing figure sure, but this time around C.J. Graham makes him feel like a proper tank (something that would be carried on wholeheartedly by Kane Hodder).
Most of the cast are typical slasher types purely here to up the kill count, but Tommy Jarvis appear once again to round off his trilogy of films, this time played by Thom Mathews, easily the most recognisable and iconic portrayal of the character.
The kills come thick and fast, and although certainly not the bloodiest of the series, it still has some memorable moments (a dude gets folded in half like a deckchair, which is suitably ridiculous) and the general pacing of the movie is well realised.
The comedic tone is just right as well. It's not quite as goofy as Part V, and the humourous parts are genuinely funny. The dumb script just adds to this. The paintball scene is a little too much though, silly music and all.
Talking of music, Harry Manfredini returns to score, and his work continues to be one of the best parts about the franchise.
Jason Lives is a good time, through and through. It's a shining example of what can be great about 80s slashers - it's fun, it's violent, just the right amount of hammy, and is simply one of the best Friday the 13th films out there.
Part VI marks the turning point into supernatural territory. Jason is back properly this time, risen from the grave, essentially a zombie, and even more unkillable than he was before. In the entries preceding this one, Jason has always been an imposing figure sure, but this time around C.J. Graham makes him feel like a proper tank (something that would be carried on wholeheartedly by Kane Hodder).
Most of the cast are typical slasher types purely here to up the kill count, but Tommy Jarvis appear once again to round off his trilogy of films, this time played by Thom Mathews, easily the most recognisable and iconic portrayal of the character.
The kills come thick and fast, and although certainly not the bloodiest of the series, it still has some memorable moments (a dude gets folded in half like a deckchair, which is suitably ridiculous) and the general pacing of the movie is well realised.
The comedic tone is just right as well. It's not quite as goofy as Part V, and the humourous parts are genuinely funny. The dumb script just adds to this. The paintball scene is a little too much though, silly music and all.
Talking of music, Harry Manfredini returns to score, and his work continues to be one of the best parts about the franchise.
Jason Lives is a good time, through and through. It's a shining example of what can be great about 80s slashers - it's fun, it's violent, just the right amount of hammy, and is simply one of the best Friday the 13th films out there.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Sin City (2005) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021 (Updated Jan 11, 2021)
I absolutely adored Sin City when it first released way back in 2005, and I still do to a point, albeit a little less than I used to.
The main positives are of course the cast, and the style.
The cast is stacked - Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Clive Owen, Micky Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Powers Boothe, Devon Aoki, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King... that's a fair ensemble if you ask me.
The style is of course a huge part of Sin City. It's neo noir black and white with splashes of colour translate perfectly from page to screen. 15 years later, the effects still look pretty decent and the overall look of the film is practically watching the graphic novels come to life, a strength that is bolstered by the cast involved.
It has a cheesy yet engaging screenplay - the runtime clocks in at over two hours, but never gets boring (just about), and the constant growly voiceovers and on the nose script beats could have potentially been laughable in anyone else's hands, but Robert Rodriguez somehow gets away with it.
The comics ultraviolence is well realised - the movie doesn't shy away from the grimness of proceedings. Some of the content however feels a little problematic in this day and age. The whole thing is plagued by a steady stream of misogyny, which would have probably been toned down if released today, but in my opinion, it's never glamorised. 95% of the male characters are grim shitbags, and the audience know it well.
I understand why a fair few people have an issue with Sin City and it's content, but personally, I find it to be a unique film with plenty of positives, a project that respects it's source material, and just about manages to avoid falling inside of its own arse.
The main positives are of course the cast, and the style.
The cast is stacked - Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Clive Owen, Micky Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Powers Boothe, Devon Aoki, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King... that's a fair ensemble if you ask me.
The style is of course a huge part of Sin City. It's neo noir black and white with splashes of colour translate perfectly from page to screen. 15 years later, the effects still look pretty decent and the overall look of the film is practically watching the graphic novels come to life, a strength that is bolstered by the cast involved.
It has a cheesy yet engaging screenplay - the runtime clocks in at over two hours, but never gets boring (just about), and the constant growly voiceovers and on the nose script beats could have potentially been laughable in anyone else's hands, but Robert Rodriguez somehow gets away with it.
The comics ultraviolence is well realised - the movie doesn't shy away from the grimness of proceedings. Some of the content however feels a little problematic in this day and age. The whole thing is plagued by a steady stream of misogyny, which would have probably been toned down if released today, but in my opinion, it's never glamorised. 95% of the male characters are grim shitbags, and the audience know it well.
I understand why a fair few people have an issue with Sin City and it's content, but personally, I find it to be a unique film with plenty of positives, a project that respects it's source material, and just about manages to avoid falling inside of its own arse.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
King Not Prince
Dracula: Prince of Darkness- is a slowburn film. It takes it time to build of Dracula and once Dracula shows than it really gets started. Christopher Lee isnt in this movie very much even though he is Dracula himself, but once he is one screen, he stills the show.
The plot: Four English travellers arrive at a tiny hamlet in the Carpathian Mountains and ignore warnings from the locals not to travel to Carlsbad, the domain of Count Dracula. A dark, driverless carriage arrives to take them to the sinister castle, but they discover too late that they have been lured there to provide the blood which will allow Dracula to rise from the grave once more.
Dracula does not speak in the film, save for a few hisses. According to Christopher Lee: "I didn't speak in that picture. The reason was very simple. I read the script and saw the dialogue! I said to Hammer, if you think I'm going to say any of these lines, you're very much mistaken.
Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster disputed that account in his memoir Inside Hammer, writing that "Vampires don't chat. So I didn't write him any dialogue. Christopher Lee has claimed that he refused to speak the lines he was given...So you can take your pick as to why Christopher Lee didn't have any dialogue in the picture. Or you can take my word for it. I didn't write any.
The film was made back to back with Rasputin, the Mad Monk, using many of the same sets and cast, including Lee, Shelley, Matthews and Farmer. Shelley later remembered accidentally swallowing one of her fangs in one scene, and having to drink salt water to bring it back up again because of the tight shooting schedule, as well as there being no spare set of fangs.
Its a decent Dracula film.
The plot: Four English travellers arrive at a tiny hamlet in the Carpathian Mountains and ignore warnings from the locals not to travel to Carlsbad, the domain of Count Dracula. A dark, driverless carriage arrives to take them to the sinister castle, but they discover too late that they have been lured there to provide the blood which will allow Dracula to rise from the grave once more.
Dracula does not speak in the film, save for a few hisses. According to Christopher Lee: "I didn't speak in that picture. The reason was very simple. I read the script and saw the dialogue! I said to Hammer, if you think I'm going to say any of these lines, you're very much mistaken.
Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster disputed that account in his memoir Inside Hammer, writing that "Vampires don't chat. So I didn't write him any dialogue. Christopher Lee has claimed that he refused to speak the lines he was given...So you can take your pick as to why Christopher Lee didn't have any dialogue in the picture. Or you can take my word for it. I didn't write any.
The film was made back to back with Rasputin, the Mad Monk, using many of the same sets and cast, including Lee, Shelley, Matthews and Farmer. Shelley later remembered accidentally swallowing one of her fangs in one scene, and having to drink salt water to bring it back up again because of the tight shooting schedule, as well as there being no spare set of fangs.
Its a decent Dracula film.
Allison Anders recommended Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Aquaslash (2019) in Movies
Dec 2, 2020
The premise of Aquaslash is painfully simple, but immediately appeals to anyone that has even a passing interest in slasher flicks - A mystery assailant inserts giant blades into a water slide tunnel, at a busy water park. That's it. That's the film.
Well, unfortunately that's not all of it...
The film opens with a standard but interest-peaking POV scene from the killer, chopping up a couple of horny teenagers at the aformentioned water park, before we get a title card. And then (the unfortunate part) we get a whole hour of goofy teen drama - remember the tsunami of sex comedies that released in the wake of American Pie? Imagine one of the shittier ones, but with no funny bits, and that's the kind of stuff we're getting here.
The script is occasionally humourous, but mostly flat and the acting from everyone involved is a little wonky (except the token jaded old dude, that guy is great)
It's not the most boring thing I've ever sat through, but it's damn close, as countless red herrings are thrown at the audience. The eventual killer reveal by the way, manages to be predictable, and somehow make no sense whatsoever. It's weird.
Thank the lord then for the last 15 minutes, that is just ridiculous and gory enough to make it all worth the slog. When everything eventually kicks off, it's actually pretty entertaining. The gore is all practically done, looks half decent, and the execution is pretty fresh. It's just a shame that the set up is such a drag - If there was more of this then Aquaslash would be miles better.
Honestly, it might be worth just fast forwarding to the good bit with this one, but if you do insist on watching the whole thing, it's not the absolute worst thing ever, and it mercifully clocks in at 75 minutes, which makes the whole ordeal that little more bearable.
Well, unfortunately that's not all of it...
The film opens with a standard but interest-peaking POV scene from the killer, chopping up a couple of horny teenagers at the aformentioned water park, before we get a title card. And then (the unfortunate part) we get a whole hour of goofy teen drama - remember the tsunami of sex comedies that released in the wake of American Pie? Imagine one of the shittier ones, but with no funny bits, and that's the kind of stuff we're getting here.
The script is occasionally humourous, but mostly flat and the acting from everyone involved is a little wonky (except the token jaded old dude, that guy is great)
It's not the most boring thing I've ever sat through, but it's damn close, as countless red herrings are thrown at the audience. The eventual killer reveal by the way, manages to be predictable, and somehow make no sense whatsoever. It's weird.
Thank the lord then for the last 15 minutes, that is just ridiculous and gory enough to make it all worth the slog. When everything eventually kicks off, it's actually pretty entertaining. The gore is all practically done, looks half decent, and the execution is pretty fresh. It's just a shame that the set up is such a drag - If there was more of this then Aquaslash would be miles better.
Honestly, it might be worth just fast forwarding to the good bit with this one, but if you do insist on watching the whole thing, it's not the absolute worst thing ever, and it mercifully clocks in at 75 minutes, which makes the whole ordeal that little more bearable.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
Oct 25, 2020
This damn doll just isn't scary, people - and neither is this movie, not a single time. However, for about half the time it does succeed at being effectively creepy and sometimes even sort of fun. I mean this is still just the same two or three rusty clichΓ©s and dated, predictable jumpscares on repeat but it has a lot of half-okay vignettes... which all get soured by the surfeit of nonsensical connections to other movies in the series and the insufferable "Hey, remember when THIS happened??" bullcrap. For one I wish they'd let David F. Sandberg be David F. Sandberg here instead of yet another inferior Wan clone like they do with the rest of these. And for two I'm not the first to suggest that this movie being more concerned with milking the Conjuring mythos dry of any miniscule amount of nuance it once had through attempting to spin it thin into some sort of pointless, scuffed 'cinematic universe' kills the standalone decent horror flick this could have been (as well as devalues the originals in the process) - and I hopefully won't be the last - but Jesus Christ did it have to be so fucking long too? When this script was written, did every sentence have to include at least three sets of ellipses between words? Also the non-horror stuff is worlds better than the horror stuff - personally I would have loved to have seen the movie that was pushed to the side in here about this group of orphans finding out something isn't right with Anthony LaPaglia and Miranda Otto or the secretive demonic stuff they've been cooking up in the background after their daughter gets killed. But no, it rushes past all the intriguing stuff in favor of a competent but saccharine and generic cash grab. Far from awful but also not all that much better than the original ππ―π―π’π£π¦πππ¦. Did we really need a prequel... to a prequel (which in and of itself we didn't need)?
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Fright Night 2 (1989) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
My 2nd purchase using my new all region DVD/Blu Ray player is another film I have not seen in probably 30 years since it has never had a DVD or Blu Ray release in the United States. In fact, the European DVD I purchased was in Spanish which I had to change back to English dialogue.
Charlie Brewster has been in psychotherapy for 3 years trying to convince himself the deeds he and fellow vampire killer, Peter Vincent, were all in his imagination. That is until a new sultry vixen creature of the night and her entourage happen to meander into his life. She also happens to be the sister of Jerry Dandrige, whom Charlie and Peter executed in their initial vampire romp.
Charlie and Peter share combined and separate encounters with their new enemy and her minions eventually trying to convince each other this is really happening again meanwhile Charlie's new girlfriend is growing impatient with her boyfriend's peculiar behavior.
It is only through their inevitable final confrontation will tensions be resolved for good.
Upon the rewatch, I soon discovered lightning did not strike twice for this sequel. This should have been one of those I rested my fondness on its memory rather than trying to update or sustain my initial opinion. It certainly was entertaining to see the vampire dispatching duo back together again; however, the formula seemed both too much the same yet the tone was remarkably different this time around.
I'm sure all would have been solved with a tight, biting script which the first film was blessed with. It was able to find the balance between humor, camp and gore. This one seemed forced and the situations more unbelievable. The villainess lacked the charm and charisma of Dandrige and her lackeys were not as fun as "Evil Ed' from the first film.
Still glad I watched it and looking forward to finding more forgotten gems in the future.
Charlie Brewster has been in psychotherapy for 3 years trying to convince himself the deeds he and fellow vampire killer, Peter Vincent, were all in his imagination. That is until a new sultry vixen creature of the night and her entourage happen to meander into his life. She also happens to be the sister of Jerry Dandrige, whom Charlie and Peter executed in their initial vampire romp.
Charlie and Peter share combined and separate encounters with their new enemy and her minions eventually trying to convince each other this is really happening again meanwhile Charlie's new girlfriend is growing impatient with her boyfriend's peculiar behavior.
It is only through their inevitable final confrontation will tensions be resolved for good.
Upon the rewatch, I soon discovered lightning did not strike twice for this sequel. This should have been one of those I rested my fondness on its memory rather than trying to update or sustain my initial opinion. It certainly was entertaining to see the vampire dispatching duo back together again; however, the formula seemed both too much the same yet the tone was remarkably different this time around.
I'm sure all would have been solved with a tight, biting script which the first film was blessed with. It was able to find the balance between humor, camp and gore. This one seemed forced and the situations more unbelievable. The villainess lacked the charm and charisma of Dandrige and her lackeys were not as fun as "Evil Ed' from the first film.
Still glad I watched it and looking forward to finding more forgotten gems in the future.
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath
Games
App
** NOTE: Requires at least an iPhone 4S, iPad 2, iPad Mini or iPod Touch 5th gen. Runs at variable...
SSH Term Pro
Utilities and Business
App
SSH Term Pro is the advanced and best SSH/Telnet Client app for your iOS devices β Best Selling...