Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Walking Dead - Season 1 in TV
Jul 15, 2017
Gripping story (2 more)
Casting for the main characters was good
Dixon brothers are a great addition to the story
Bad special effects (2 more)
Characters actions sometimes don't make a lot of sense
A lot of filler characters and plot lines
Zombies in Atlanta
As a long time fan of The Walking Dead, including the comics, the books, and the video games, the television series did alright. I liked the casting for the main characters, much of the main story was kept loyal to the source material, and there were a few new characters and surprises added to the show.
There are a lot of new characters added to the story, the highlights being Daryl and Merle Dixon. The rest were easily forgettable and felt like filler characters to feed to the meat grinder to get a reaction out of audiences. This was sort of a negative to me because I would hardly have a chance to like or care about these new characters before they were killed off. This makes character deaths in the series have a little less impact.
The story deviates from the comics in both good and bad ways. I liked that a few character arcs were switched around to keep the story fresh for folks that have already read the comics. I liked that one of my least favorite characters from the comics, Carol, was changed in a way that makes her character more compelling.
My only other complaint would be the filler. It seemed like the story kept getting off track and moving away from the main conflict (Rick and Shane) pretty often, which makes the story feel sloppy. I don't know if it's just me, but I just didn't like the story arc with the CDC. It was promising and was interesting at first, but it became predictable pretty quickly and everything about it was just too ridiculous to me. The special effects were bad and it just made little to no sense the way it happened.
I wanted to like this first season more and be blown away but overall it was okay/good to me. I think it sets things up well and piqued my interest enough to continue to the next season. For zombie fans, it's definitely a series worth checking out. For those already well acquainted with the story via the comics, don't expect a faithful adaptation and be prepared for the usual tv tropes and silly plot filler.
There are a lot of new characters added to the story, the highlights being Daryl and Merle Dixon. The rest were easily forgettable and felt like filler characters to feed to the meat grinder to get a reaction out of audiences. This was sort of a negative to me because I would hardly have a chance to like or care about these new characters before they were killed off. This makes character deaths in the series have a little less impact.
The story deviates from the comics in both good and bad ways. I liked that a few character arcs were switched around to keep the story fresh for folks that have already read the comics. I liked that one of my least favorite characters from the comics, Carol, was changed in a way that makes her character more compelling.
My only other complaint would be the filler. It seemed like the story kept getting off track and moving away from the main conflict (Rick and Shane) pretty often, which makes the story feel sloppy. I don't know if it's just me, but I just didn't like the story arc with the CDC. It was promising and was interesting at first, but it became predictable pretty quickly and everything about it was just too ridiculous to me. The special effects were bad and it just made little to no sense the way it happened.
I wanted to like this first season more and be blown away but overall it was okay/good to me. I think it sets things up well and piqued my interest enough to continue to the next season. For zombie fans, it's definitely a series worth checking out. For those already well acquainted with the story via the comics, don't expect a faithful adaptation and be prepared for the usual tv tropes and silly plot filler.
Gamer bunnz (4 KP) rated New Amsterdam in TV
May 22, 2019
Bring the tissues
Contains spoilers, click to show
I watched the whole first series in about two weeks, at first I thought it was going to be another grey anatomy where we see drama, love lost and betrayal, we do see some of these but in a more subtle way, the main focus in on max and how he can turn things around for new Amsterdam and put the patience’s first not money which is how it should be, whilst trying to mix things up max starts to battle a personal health issues and save his marriage after he promised to settle down and give up such a demanding job to help bring up his unborn baby girl. We see max make changes to the hospital that not everyone agrees with but he pushes for it anyways and we watch him slowly begin to lose his fight with throat cancer but still battles on. All the actors/actress bring there own style to the show and you can’t help but full in love with them, unlike other tv series there wasn’t a character I didn’t like, I enjoy watching their own stories unfold along with max’s And when things happened to them I felt all the emotions that went along with it, I laugh, I cried(quite a bit) I got anger at things that happened and felt sad when I was down the final two episodes I was sad it was ending but the final episode didn’t disappoint it left me hoping a second season will be made and all the characters return for it but with the cliff hanger we was left on, I am unsure if all will be returning if they make a second. All in all the series was surprising and different from other medical program there wasn’t to many Far-fetched medical scenes or silly medical terms that don’t get used in real life,don’t get me wrong there was some but it wasn’t t litter with it, I would recommend this to anyone looking for something more than just another modern day ER, who doesn’t have time to watch the multi seasons of grey anatomy, it different in its own right and it Will certainly take you on a emotional rollercoaster.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 29, 2018
Smart action flick with a tremendous Denzel performance
I really enjoyed the first EQUALIZER film. Based on the TV show of the same name, it followed the exploits of Denzel Washington as he "righted wrongs". I nicknamed this film "how to kill bad guys with things you find at your local Home Depot", for that is what happens. Denzel's character improvises traps and weapons to dispatch the evil-doers.
So...I was "all in" when they announced a sequel to this flick. I figured that Washington and his frequent collaborator, Director Antoine Fuqua (both Equalizer's as well as helming Denzel's Oscar winning performance in TRAINING DAY) would make things "bigger and badder" as often happens in sequels - bigger stakes, more bad guys, bigger - and trickier - improvisations - this time, perhaps at a Walmart!
But I was wrong - they didn't go bigger, they went smaller and smarter - and the movie is better for it.
In EQUALIZER 2, we get more personal with Denzel's character, Robert McCall. There still are plenty of bad guys getting the punishment they deserve, but it is the toll on McCall and the reasoning behind why he is doing what he is doing that is at center stage in this film, putting the weight of this film, rightfully so, on Denzel's more than capable shoulders. He comes through - as he always does - tremendously well. There is one scene where Denzel is trying to get a teenage boy to walk away from a gang. I was amazed that I was watching an "Academy Award" level scene in the middle of an action flick, but that is absolutely what it is.
Now...make no mistake...there is plenty of action, chases and violence in this film, but Fuqua shows great restraint, giving the violence a purpose instead of being gratuitous. Even when they have a final battle in the middle of a hurricane-level storm, Fuqua rightfully focuses on the people element of things - and not the spectacle of the elements and circumstances.
Both Fuqua and Washington make some smart choices in this film, which makes it a smart movie, well made with just enough action to please all.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
So...I was "all in" when they announced a sequel to this flick. I figured that Washington and his frequent collaborator, Director Antoine Fuqua (both Equalizer's as well as helming Denzel's Oscar winning performance in TRAINING DAY) would make things "bigger and badder" as often happens in sequels - bigger stakes, more bad guys, bigger - and trickier - improvisations - this time, perhaps at a Walmart!
But I was wrong - they didn't go bigger, they went smaller and smarter - and the movie is better for it.
In EQUALIZER 2, we get more personal with Denzel's character, Robert McCall. There still are plenty of bad guys getting the punishment they deserve, but it is the toll on McCall and the reasoning behind why he is doing what he is doing that is at center stage in this film, putting the weight of this film, rightfully so, on Denzel's more than capable shoulders. He comes through - as he always does - tremendously well. There is one scene where Denzel is trying to get a teenage boy to walk away from a gang. I was amazed that I was watching an "Academy Award" level scene in the middle of an action flick, but that is absolutely what it is.
Now...make no mistake...there is plenty of action, chases and violence in this film, but Fuqua shows great restraint, giving the violence a purpose instead of being gratuitous. Even when they have a final battle in the middle of a hurricane-level storm, Fuqua rightfully focuses on the people element of things - and not the spectacle of the elements and circumstances.
Both Fuqua and Washington make some smart choices in this film, which makes it a smart movie, well made with just enough action to please all.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2019
Murder She Wrote
The good liar is creaky but enjoyable little movie that screams 80s British murder mystery Tv show and while its extreamly predictable theres enough twists to keep you entertained. Whats aparent right from the start is Ian Mckellen and Helen Mirren's on screen chemistry, the two are just fantastic to watch interacting with each other and really help to carry the entire film with thier acting skills alone. Sadly I really cant say the same about the rest of the cast most of whomb come across as stiff, lifeless souls with no personality making most of thier scenes dull and unitresting filler (russell toveys character especially). Plot wise its fine and actually tries some quite brave ideas for this kind of film taking the movie places I really didnt expect it to go. Trouble is the film feels caught between what it wants to be switching between grisly violent crime thriller back to tame old light hearted drama randomly without the two ever seeming connected. Also while ian mckellen is fantastic the film tries far to hard to make the viewer dislike him by using seemingly forced reasons eg showing him far to often randomly cursing profoudly, smoking, drinking or comitting a random out of place extreame act of violence its all very unnecisary and seems only there to hide a twist that comes later in the film. Music cues frustrate too cheaply placed into the film to tell us how we should be feeling during certain scenes but instead making the film feel outdated. Theres no real sense of nail biting tension either and while the story is fun to watch play out with no real danger, urgency or any griping scenes its all just one tone throughout. A big plot twist can also be seen coming right from the start too but thankfully theres enough twists and turns to make that not to much of a problem. All this being said I did have a good time with good liar the two leads clearly enjoyed working together and while the film is extreamly out dated as far as film making goes it will no doubt spark nostalgia and bring enjoyment to people that grew up with shows such a Poirot and Coloumbo.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to admit, I knew nothing about The Man from U.N.C.L.E going into the movie, other than it was based on a TV show from the 60’s. It had flown under my radar for most of the year, overshadowed by highly-anticipated titles with colons, i.e., Avengers: Age of Ultron, Mad Max: Fury Road, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. When the screener was scheduled I was actually tempted to assign it to another reviewer. Then I watched the trailer and saw Henry Cavill (Superman) was one of the stars. At the risk of sounding shallow, that changed my mind.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.
Fun Radio - Le Son Dancefloor
Music, Entertainment and Stickers
App
Fun Radio, Le Son Dancefloor sur votre Smartphone et Tablette ! Découvrez toutes les...
NCIS: Hidden Crimes
Games
6.0
Rate It
App
Time to find your first clue, probie! Join Gibbs, Abby and other NCIS agents to investigate crimes...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Mongolian Death Worm (2010) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Daniel is a treasure hunter searching for the burial grounds of Genghis Khan but has made his own enemies in the land but also knows how to handle himself, he isn’t the kindest of people always doing things for money over the right reasons, Alicia is a doctor that has been helping the locals of Mongolia with a virus outbreak and she is willing to die to save these people. Timur is the sheriff that is one of the few people that enjoys the company of Daniel and understands that he is harmless at heart.
Performance – Sean Patrick Flanery does seem to have fallen from the graces where he was about to make it to the big time but he is the star of this show. Victoria Pratt is fine in the supporting role with the brains and beauty needed for the film and George Cheung gives us the laughs when needed.
Story – The story does mix myth with legend when it comes to dealing with new inhabitants to a land that must face the idea that a myth isn’t just a myth and must work together to defeat a creature in this case a Mongolian Death Worm. This is an easy to watch story as it is mostly a group of people needing to battle an unknown enemy before they take over the local area.
Action/Horror – The action is mostly chases through the film which works when it comes to the enemies the people are facing with the horror side of the movie all coming from the creature feature idea which is always a lot of fun to watch.
Settings – The film is set in Mongolia but this looks like it could be anywhere in the USA or anywhere that has dirt roads.
Special Effects – The effects are better than I was expecting but still within the budget of a TV movie.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The film could have been filmed in any location it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple creature feature that is a lot better than what I was expecting without being one of the best creature features you will see, I do think the fact it isn’t laughably bad does hinder it though.
Overall: Solid creature feature.
Performance – Sean Patrick Flanery does seem to have fallen from the graces where he was about to make it to the big time but he is the star of this show. Victoria Pratt is fine in the supporting role with the brains and beauty needed for the film and George Cheung gives us the laughs when needed.
Story – The story does mix myth with legend when it comes to dealing with new inhabitants to a land that must face the idea that a myth isn’t just a myth and must work together to defeat a creature in this case a Mongolian Death Worm. This is an easy to watch story as it is mostly a group of people needing to battle an unknown enemy before they take over the local area.
Action/Horror – The action is mostly chases through the film which works when it comes to the enemies the people are facing with the horror side of the movie all coming from the creature feature idea which is always a lot of fun to watch.
Settings – The film is set in Mongolia but this looks like it could be anywhere in the USA or anywhere that has dirt roads.
Special Effects – The effects are better than I was expecting but still within the budget of a TV movie.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The film could have been filmed in any location it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple creature feature that is a lot better than what I was expecting without being one of the best creature features you will see, I do think the fact it isn’t laughably bad does hinder it though.
Overall: Solid creature feature.
AdBlocker Browser for Chromecast
Productivity and Utilities
App
Over 4 Millionen users can not be wrong. From a just-for-fun independent app to the leading...