Search
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Silent Hill: Revelation (2012) in Movies
Jul 7, 2019
Why?
So this movie came out 6 years after the first one. That tells you something, that six years for sequel to come is too late.
Also dont forget that this movie is in 3d cause that was a trend for horror movies in the late 2000's.
Plot: DescriptionFor many years, Heather Mason (Adelaide Clemens) and her father, Harry (Sean Bean), have been on the run from dangerous forces she does not understand. Heather continues to be plagued by terrifying nightmares and frightened by her father's disappearance, and on the eve of her 18th birthday, she discovers that she is not who she thinks she is. The revelation leads her deep into the demonic world of Silent Hill, where she may become trapped forever.
It has a great cast, but doesnt know what to do with them.
I forgot that this movie excist, because it shouldnt excist. Unlike the first one which was 2 hours long this one was 90 mins long. Its still very slow paste.
Dont watch this film its a waste of 90 mins.
Also dont forget that this movie is in 3d cause that was a trend for horror movies in the late 2000's.
Plot: DescriptionFor many years, Heather Mason (Adelaide Clemens) and her father, Harry (Sean Bean), have been on the run from dangerous forces she does not understand. Heather continues to be plagued by terrifying nightmares and frightened by her father's disappearance, and on the eve of her 18th birthday, she discovers that she is not who she thinks she is. The revelation leads her deep into the demonic world of Silent Hill, where she may become trapped forever.
It has a great cast, but doesnt know what to do with them.
I forgot that this movie excist, because it shouldnt excist. Unlike the first one which was 2 hours long this one was 90 mins long. Its still very slow paste.
Dont watch this film its a waste of 90 mins.
I'll Take You There
8.5
Rate It
Book
Behind every good man is a great woman - or three. A New York Times bestseller: the kaleidoscopic...
Movie Looks
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
Instant Hollywood on your videos. 40 Movie inspired Looks. Movie Looks adds emotional impact and...
Jon Savage recommended It (1927) in Movies (curated)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Clerks (1994) in Movies
Apr 22, 2017
Simple (3 more)
Hilarious
Pop Culture discussions
Jay and Silent Bob
I'm not even suppose to be here today!
Here is a film that could have left Kevin Smith in the Quickstop paying off the money he used to make this film, which he accomplished by maxing out credit cards.
Kevin Smith is an inspiration and this film is the start of it all. Clerks is a very simple film that manages to be entertaining and hilarious. The concept is this; Dante Hicks (Brian O'Halloran) is asked to work on his day off, and ends up spending his day working in his dead end job behind the counter at a convenience store in New Jersey.
I should mention that this film is shot on a Arriflex 16 SR2 which means the film is in black and white.
Working with Dante is his best friend, Randal Graves, who isn't exactly a big help around the store or with personal problems. If anything, he makes matters worse because he almost never takes anything seriously.
The humour in this film is found through discussions of films such as Star Wars, discussions about sex, and about the customers of course. Describing it in text doesn't do it justice so you'll just have to watch it if I have in anyway peaked your interest.
This film was the introduction to what is known as the 'View Askewniverse' which is a series of films by Kevin Smith which are all connected via characters and events. However, the most important introductions from this film are the characters of the now famous duo, Jay and Silent Bob played by Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith. Yes, the same Kevin Smith who wrote and Directed the Movie. These two are the only two characters to appear in every movie in the View Askewniverse and usually help move the film in the right direction.
Overall, Clerks has to be one of my favourite movies of all time and once you watch the Askewniverse, it's easy to understand why, because no only is it smart and hilarious, but you have to appreciate that this started a series of other great indie films that made Kevin Smith the funny man he is today.
Kevin Smith is an inspiration and this film is the start of it all. Clerks is a very simple film that manages to be entertaining and hilarious. The concept is this; Dante Hicks (Brian O'Halloran) is asked to work on his day off, and ends up spending his day working in his dead end job behind the counter at a convenience store in New Jersey.
I should mention that this film is shot on a Arriflex 16 SR2 which means the film is in black and white.
Working with Dante is his best friend, Randal Graves, who isn't exactly a big help around the store or with personal problems. If anything, he makes matters worse because he almost never takes anything seriously.
The humour in this film is found through discussions of films such as Star Wars, discussions about sex, and about the customers of course. Describing it in text doesn't do it justice so you'll just have to watch it if I have in anyway peaked your interest.
This film was the introduction to what is known as the 'View Askewniverse' which is a series of films by Kevin Smith which are all connected via characters and events. However, the most important introductions from this film are the characters of the now famous duo, Jay and Silent Bob played by Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith. Yes, the same Kevin Smith who wrote and Directed the Movie. These two are the only two characters to appear in every movie in the View Askewniverse and usually help move the film in the right direction.
Overall, Clerks has to be one of my favourite movies of all time and once you watch the Askewniverse, it's easy to understand why, because no only is it smart and hilarious, but you have to appreciate that this started a series of other great indie films that made Kevin Smith the funny man he is today.
Mixed Race Cinemas: Multiracial Dynamics in America and France
Book
Using critical race theory and film studies to explore the interconnectedness between cinema and...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Scream 3 (2000) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 7, 2020)
The third entry in the Scream franchise is a mixed bag to say the least. It takes everything that made the first two so enjoyable, and throws more of it at the audience, but unfortunately it just doesn't land as well as one would hope.
Scream is known for being a meta commentary on the general ins and outs of the horror genre, but I would argue that it goes a little overboard this time around. A big part of the plot revolves around a huge retcon, changing the established backstory set up in the first movie. Cue a somewhat forced cameo from fan favourite character Randy to explain the rules of a trilogy to the surviving leads (and poke fun at this plot development) but it fails to distract from the fact that this narrative is a complete mess.
The killers motives and patterns are unclear and constantly change, and the eventual twist and identify reveal of this movies Ghostface is hugely underwhelming, and is just re treading ground that has already been explored in the previous Scream films. Also, that voice changing plot device is just dumb.
In response to the public outcry of media violence following the Columbine shootings, there is a lot less gore this time around which also hurts the overall experience. It loses its shock factor that was particularly prevalent in the original, and gives the film a sort of blunt edge, and instead focuses on the hit and miss comedy aspect.
All this being said, Scream 3 is still enjoyable when it needs to be. The returning trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette is essential to that particular element. These characters have been fleshed out well over these movies, and seeing them together on screen is always a treat. Everyone else is largely forgettable, but the film manages to shoehorn in cameos from Jay and Silent Bob, and Carrie Fisher, which just adds to surrealism of it all.
Not Wes Craven's finest hour by a long shot, but still an enjoyable enough slasher, and still a part of a hugely important horror series.
Scream is known for being a meta commentary on the general ins and outs of the horror genre, but I would argue that it goes a little overboard this time around. A big part of the plot revolves around a huge retcon, changing the established backstory set up in the first movie. Cue a somewhat forced cameo from fan favourite character Randy to explain the rules of a trilogy to the surviving leads (and poke fun at this plot development) but it fails to distract from the fact that this narrative is a complete mess.
The killers motives and patterns are unclear and constantly change, and the eventual twist and identify reveal of this movies Ghostface is hugely underwhelming, and is just re treading ground that has already been explored in the previous Scream films. Also, that voice changing plot device is just dumb.
In response to the public outcry of media violence following the Columbine shootings, there is a lot less gore this time around which also hurts the overall experience. It loses its shock factor that was particularly prevalent in the original, and gives the film a sort of blunt edge, and instead focuses on the hit and miss comedy aspect.
All this being said, Scream 3 is still enjoyable when it needs to be. The returning trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette is essential to that particular element. These characters have been fleshed out well over these movies, and seeing them together on screen is always a treat. Everyone else is largely forgettable, but the film manages to shoehorn in cameos from Jay and Silent Bob, and Carrie Fisher, which just adds to surrealism of it all.
Not Wes Craven's finest hour by a long shot, but still an enjoyable enough slasher, and still a part of a hugely important horror series.
Stanley Kubrick and Me: Thirty Years at His Side
Emilio D'Alessandro, Filippo Ulivieri and Simon Marsh
Book
This intimate portrait by his former personal assistant and confidante reveals the man behind the...
I Used to be in Pictures: An Untold Story of Hollywood
Austin Mutti-Mewse and Howard Mutti-Mewse
Book
I Used to be in Pictures is a collection of unpublished correspondence between English born...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Sherlock, Jr. (1924) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
I have seen and very much enjoyed the work of Buster Keaton in the past, most notably The General, which knocked me sideways by how inventive and genuinely funny it was. My main movie love for the silent era is Charlie Chaplin, and much like it is possible to like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones but only truly love one, Keaton will always be second best for me. But what a second best. Genius is an overused word, of course, but pioneer says it better anyway. The sheer volume of invention per minute is magnificent – from the technical editing techniques that were created just for this film, to the forms of visual comedy that broke the mould and raised the bar in every scene.
Most memorable is the cinema scene where Keaton’s love sick amateur sleuth tries to hide by actually entering the screen – a trick paid homage to in many movies since, including Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is astonishing to think he not only thought of doing this in 1924, but also pulled it off with jaw-dropping special effects for the time. It’s also really funny. You don’t have to force a laugh because you feel you should, it is still clever and amusing almost 100 years later. In fact, the entire 46 minute print still looks so good it is hard to believe it is that old in any way. Surely one of a handful of half length films from the period that will always be watched for what they are and not just museum pieces.
Most memorable is the cinema scene where Keaton’s love sick amateur sleuth tries to hide by actually entering the screen – a trick paid homage to in many movies since, including Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is astonishing to think he not only thought of doing this in 1924, but also pulled it off with jaw-dropping special effects for the time. It’s also really funny. You don’t have to force a laugh because you feel you should, it is still clever and amusing almost 100 years later. In fact, the entire 46 minute print still looks so good it is hard to believe it is that old in any way. Surely one of a handful of half length films from the period that will always be watched for what they are and not just museum pieces.