Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Addams Family (1991) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The Addams Family starts as we meet the family Morticia (Huston), Gomez (Julia), Lurch (Struycken), Wednesday (Ricci), Pugsley (Workman) and Thing (Hart) who have been trying to contact Uncle Fester after his disppearnce years before. Bring in Tully Alford (Hedaya) and his wife Margaret (Ivey) who want the Addams family fortune.
Tully and Abigail Craven (Wilson) use her son Gordon (Lloyd) to pretend to be Uncle Fester as he enters the house to find his share of the fortune but his adventure are nothing like he would expect as he has to deal with the unusual behaviour of the Addams family. It isn’t long before the family starts to question this Uncle Fester and soon begin to love the strange character even if he isn’t the man they thought he was.
The Addams Family is one of the true classic family comedy fantasy film that shows just how different we can see each person in our own family to be different. The interactions between the family are all twisted in a loving way where we could see others question while the interaction with the people outside the family all come off slightly awkward which sums up the family perfectly.
The con-artist side of the story comes off nicely as we can see how naïve a family can be but even with love people can change. The performances are all great with Raul Julia and Anjelica Huston have perfect chemistry as the father and mother of the family. The rest of the cast all give great performances that you can believe from start to finish with the uniqueness given to each character.
Overall: Underrated classic that hits on all of the unique style needed to make it truly stand out.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/01/18/the-addams-family-1991/
Tully and Abigail Craven (Wilson) use her son Gordon (Lloyd) to pretend to be Uncle Fester as he enters the house to find his share of the fortune but his adventure are nothing like he would expect as he has to deal with the unusual behaviour of the Addams family. It isn’t long before the family starts to question this Uncle Fester and soon begin to love the strange character even if he isn’t the man they thought he was.
The Addams Family is one of the true classic family comedy fantasy film that shows just how different we can see each person in our own family to be different. The interactions between the family are all twisted in a loving way where we could see others question while the interaction with the people outside the family all come off slightly awkward which sums up the family perfectly.
The con-artist side of the story comes off nicely as we can see how naïve a family can be but even with love people can change. The performances are all great with Raul Julia and Anjelica Huston have perfect chemistry as the father and mother of the family. The rest of the cast all give great performances that you can believe from start to finish with the uniqueness given to each character.
Overall: Underrated classic that hits on all of the unique style needed to make it truly stand out.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/01/18/the-addams-family-1991/
Lost Souls of Horror and the Gothic: Fifty-Four Neglected Authors, Actors, Artists and Others
Elizabeth McCarthy and Bernice M. Murphy
Book
Horror and Gothic in all of their various forms have penetrated the cultural mainstream in a manner...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Cooties (2015) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Oct 26, 2020)
An Irreverent Off Color Zombie-Comedy
Contains spoilers, click to show
I thought this movie was very underrated by the critic community. I really enjoyed it and felt it had exactly what I look for in a zombie movie. The premise fits well with it's genre because in real life this would be terrible and frightening. Kids being zombies, yikes. But since it's a comedy it was easy for them to set up some pretty funny scenes of them having to fight off kids that are trying to eat them. Critics saying it not being funny enough are hard for me to agree with because it had plenty of laughs for me, although some of them fell flat or were kind of lame. And that it was too ugly and violent for younger viewers, well hello, it's rated R. I do have to say that away from the premise the story or plot wasn't all too creative but it plays out well over the 94 minute film. Some critics also commented about "uninspired plot mechanics" which to me was more about some of it being predictable or cliché with zombie tropes common to the genre but I thought they fit into the plot in a good way that kept the direction of the movie going. One thing that I did agree with was that the ending was disappointing or unsatisfactory but I've learned that in zombie movies that's something you have to expect sometimes. There's not going to always be a happy ending or any kind of ending sometimes but there was a funny after credits scene where the janitor is shown for a couple of seconds. I give this movie a 7/10.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Avatar (2009) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
"𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬."
The story has been criticized up and down for being about as basic as can be, as well as being somewhat subtractive of the real life parallel this is generally aiming for - and I agree wholeheartedly. But let's be honest here, nobody goes into this for its merits as a piece of storytelling - which it isn't even necessarily bad at on the whole - it just rushes into and through everything too quickly (that goes double for a movie of this length). No, this is front-to-back pure, rich spectacle. Movies since have tried to emulate it but none have even come close to reaching the grandiose scope, immaculate attention to detail, and luxurious world-building. There's so much on the screen all at once you could almost get lost, as if you were right there in this massive, vibrant splashpad of late 2000s blockbuster merriment. And those last thirty minutes of rock-solid PG-13 fantasy violence just take the cake, holy *shit* they rule (remember when these used to end in half-hour long epic battle sequences where you could actually see and even care about what was going on?). Mechs fighting giant fantastical animals, soldiers getting pincushioned left and right with massive arrows, huge flying creatures shot-putting military aircrafts into the sides of cliffs... had a smile the size of Texas across my face the whole time - that's as good as those things get. Plus this is another entry into my Joel-David-Moore-is-underrated collection because he outacts the entire cast of A-listers here. As beautiful as the day it came out, but perhaps in a different way reflexively.
The story has been criticized up and down for being about as basic as can be, as well as being somewhat subtractive of the real life parallel this is generally aiming for - and I agree wholeheartedly. But let's be honest here, nobody goes into this for its merits as a piece of storytelling - which it isn't even necessarily bad at on the whole - it just rushes into and through everything too quickly (that goes double for a movie of this length). No, this is front-to-back pure, rich spectacle. Movies since have tried to emulate it but none have even come close to reaching the grandiose scope, immaculate attention to detail, and luxurious world-building. There's so much on the screen all at once you could almost get lost, as if you were right there in this massive, vibrant splashpad of late 2000s blockbuster merriment. And those last thirty minutes of rock-solid PG-13 fantasy violence just take the cake, holy *shit* they rule (remember when these used to end in half-hour long epic battle sequences where you could actually see and even care about what was going on?). Mechs fighting giant fantastical animals, soldiers getting pincushioned left and right with massive arrows, huge flying creatures shot-putting military aircrafts into the sides of cliffs... had a smile the size of Texas across my face the whole time - that's as good as those things get. Plus this is another entry into my Joel-David-Moore-is-underrated collection because he outacts the entire cast of A-listers here. As beautiful as the day it came out, but perhaps in a different way reflexively.
Brecoles Nine (16 KP) rated The Flash in TV
Mar 12, 2019 (Updated Mar 12, 2019)
The Fastest Man Alive
The Flash on CW! This show is absolutely brilliant in my true honest opinion. It started with Grant Gustin appearing as Barry Allen in a few episodes of Arrow, after that, they announced that his own show would be coming to the network. The hype encircled this new show, the veteran fans of The Flash were immediately on board. Then came the new fans of the Scarlet Speedster. This show has given attention to a hero I believe has been severely underrated and underappreciated. Barry Allen is a CSI Agent that gets struck by lightning and gains the power of the Speed Force, he becomes The Flash, the fastest man alive. The show focuses a lot on Barry just not being quite fast enough to beat the villain of each story arc, but it can be that sometimes Barry can't always save the day. For being a show called The Flash, it focuses on each hero and villain as equal parts to the show. Cameos from other heroes and villains of The Flash tv show back in the 80's-90's era are also a wonderdul addition and subtle nod that the Multiverse actually does exist. There's time travel, parralel dimension travel, seperate Earth travel, amazing character development, wonderful nods to past present and future DC Hero's and Villians. The show does somewhat get repetitive as in, it feels like they're losing ideas once they finish up a story arc. It does catch its footing after a few episodes, however. The Flash on CW is definitely the show that takes the cake from all the other shows on the network such as Arrow, Supergirl, and DC's Legends of Tomorrow. We will see if Batwoman stays on par with The Flash when they finish that one up.
Elli H Burton (1288 KP) rated The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) in Movies
Jun 17, 2019
Surprisingly Fantastic
Honestly couldn't believe I enjoyed this film. I hate drug use and for a film that has so much of it I still don't understand why I like it.
The direction is superb, the sequence of how he went from the start to the big office is awesome. The narration is awesome too, sometimes it can be like YEAH I GET IT but i felt it was appropriate.
The acting is probably one of the best I've ever seen, how leo didn't get his oscar from this I don't know. Just the scene at the hotel payphone is (despite my pure hatred for drugs) just phenomenal. Also Jonah Hill, he really became the character. He is so underrated it's ridiculous, he's usually typecast to the chubby geeky guy but in this he's a sleezy, philandering a**hole and he plays it to perfection, the way he commits is something people aspiring to become actors should watch and take notes. Margot Robbie, for her first major role in film DAMN. I'm a straight woman but she just oozes sexy. Her accent is spot on, especially when you know she's actually Australian. She got the part and she made it hers, no one else could have played Jordan's wife but her.
The Matthew McConaughey scene is something that will go down in movie history for one of the best (and slightly odd) improvisation moments.
Jordan's character progression is timed perfectly, it's gradual enough to be subtle, but not so slow it's boring
I didn't like the whole shaven head thing, found that a bit omg, as with the prostitutes was too much but the pros of this film outway all that.
I found it to be gritty, sexy, funny, disturbing and a fantastic movie. Definitely should watch it, though maybe not for a family film night!
The direction is superb, the sequence of how he went from the start to the big office is awesome. The narration is awesome too, sometimes it can be like YEAH I GET IT but i felt it was appropriate.
The acting is probably one of the best I've ever seen, how leo didn't get his oscar from this I don't know. Just the scene at the hotel payphone is (despite my pure hatred for drugs) just phenomenal. Also Jonah Hill, he really became the character. He is so underrated it's ridiculous, he's usually typecast to the chubby geeky guy but in this he's a sleezy, philandering a**hole and he plays it to perfection, the way he commits is something people aspiring to become actors should watch and take notes. Margot Robbie, for her first major role in film DAMN. I'm a straight woman but she just oozes sexy. Her accent is spot on, especially when you know she's actually Australian. She got the part and she made it hers, no one else could have played Jordan's wife but her.
The Matthew McConaughey scene is something that will go down in movie history for one of the best (and slightly odd) improvisation moments.
Jordan's character progression is timed perfectly, it's gradual enough to be subtle, but not so slow it's boring
I didn't like the whole shaven head thing, found that a bit omg, as with the prostitutes was too much but the pros of this film outway all that.
I found it to be gritty, sexy, funny, disturbing and a fantastic movie. Definitely should watch it, though maybe not for a family film night!
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
A great take on a vampire film
I can't believe I've never seen this film before. Not only do I love vampire films, I also have a soft spot for Sam Neill and Ethan Hawke, so I should've watched this a long time ago!
This is a very refreshing and original take on a vampire film. It's not an idea I've seen before, and it works really well. The background to the story and vampires is flashed over so quickly during the opening scenes and credits, and at a 1hr40 runtime this film really doesn't mess around. The vampire world looks great and I loved the grayscale and darker camera shots whenever the vampires were on screen, it made a stark contrast to the scenes set in daylight. This is such a different version of vampires to what we're used to and there are parts of this where you almost feel sorry for them.
Ethan Hawke is wonderful as Ed, and Sam Neill is deliciously wicked as he has been in other films, despite the fact I cant stop seeing him as Alan Grant! I think Willem Dafoe was a tad underused thought. The best thing I loved about this film was the gore and physical effects. It's an 18 for a reason and I loved all of the blood and guts. Admittedly some of the gore seemed a little over the top and ridiculous towards the end, but this just made it all the more hilariously enjoyable.
This film isn't perfect. I think some of the CGI is dodgy in parts which is a shame as the rest of the effects are rather good. And the sub plot about Sam Neill's daughter seemed a little flimsy. But aside from this, I think Daybreakers is a great underrated vampire film with a unique story, that seems to have gone without the recognition it deserves.
This is a very refreshing and original take on a vampire film. It's not an idea I've seen before, and it works really well. The background to the story and vampires is flashed over so quickly during the opening scenes and credits, and at a 1hr40 runtime this film really doesn't mess around. The vampire world looks great and I loved the grayscale and darker camera shots whenever the vampires were on screen, it made a stark contrast to the scenes set in daylight. This is such a different version of vampires to what we're used to and there are parts of this where you almost feel sorry for them.
Ethan Hawke is wonderful as Ed, and Sam Neill is deliciously wicked as he has been in other films, despite the fact I cant stop seeing him as Alan Grant! I think Willem Dafoe was a tad underused thought. The best thing I loved about this film was the gore and physical effects. It's an 18 for a reason and I loved all of the blood and guts. Admittedly some of the gore seemed a little over the top and ridiculous towards the end, but this just made it all the more hilariously enjoyable.
This film isn't perfect. I think some of the CGI is dodgy in parts which is a shame as the rest of the effects are rather good. And the sub plot about Sam Neill's daughter seemed a little flimsy. But aside from this, I think Daybreakers is a great underrated vampire film with a unique story, that seems to have gone without the recognition it deserves.
Matt Geiger (15 KP) rated Cars (2006) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
There really is no such thing as a perfect film. Ergo, there really is no such thing as a perfect film studio. After 11 years of winning the world over, Pixar was due for a slip-up at some point. Enter this lowbrow, highly unremarkable passion project from Pixar creative giant John Lasseter. CARS is admittedly a highly nostalgic film, not just in the sense that it pays tribute to the quaint, remote, and practically undiscovered sections of the world we wish had more notoriety in the face of progress, but its swelling commercialism reflects an entire generation of young boys who had nothing better to do than play with their matchbox cars and Hot Wheels all day long. Just think: this trilogy has made more moolah from their merchandise than a franchise that has the word “toy” in its frickin’ title. As a narrative, in the same vein as the franchise’s final installment, there really is nothing abhorrently wrong with CARS. It adds onto its aura of nostalgia by remaining consistently harmless and humorous thanks to its well-chosen cast, with Paul Newman standing out in his cinematic swan song, one of the most underrated vocal performances in animation history. Though CARS often feels like the first Pixar film targeting a specific target audience, Newman’s gruff, yet somber voice resonates with older viewers, the thought of what could’ve been and now is always on his mind. Then again, how ironic it is that a film that very much centralizes the concept of missed opportunities is itself a missed opportunity. CARS is a predictable, if not enjoyable, family-friendly romp that doesn’t have the unforeseeable on its mind. While it is quite literally the most inhuman of Pixar films, it at least is not quite as inhuman on a metaphorical and emotional level. And hey, stock car racing is not as accessible as other sports, but this film manages to make it look more entertaining, especially for younger viewers. What more do you really need?
Zach Galligan recommended The Thing (1982) in Movies (curated)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Under Siege (1992) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Cheesy But Leaves An Impact
A short order cook on a navy ship has to fight off terrorists that have taken control.
Acting: 6
When I think acting chops, please believe I’m not referring to Steven Seagal. It’s rough watching him spit out lines. The majority of the other actors aren’t really any better save for an underrated performance by Tommy Lee Jones. If you’re looking for quality thespians, look elsewhere.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
There are some quality shots here, although things are a bit jumbled at times. I do have to give credit to Andrew Davis as I’m sure it was a challenge doing a movie solely below deck of a ship. I definitely wouldn’t want that challenge. Not much to be desired, I appreciated he did the best he could with the little he was given.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Cheesy, but definitely leaves enough of an impact where I would watch it again. It’s a great movie to check out while folding clothes or doing any other mindless task. Steven Seagal definitely leaves behind some fun action moments that make the movie worthwhile.
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Cheesy? Sure. Original? Absolutely. It sounds ridiculous but I have to give the story credit for trying to branch out and try something new, especially during the early 90’s when martial arts movies were all the rage. It’s not winning any Oscars, but I’ve seen worse stories from movies that have tried harder.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that brings the movie to a nice close. I like that it fits perfectly in line with the rest of the cheesiness of the movie. Great way to wrap things up.
Overall: 73
For what it’s worth, Under Siege doesn’t do anything exceptionally well, but it doesn’t do anything terribly bad either. It’s a fun movie if you have time to kill. Definitely one of my favorite Tommy Lee Jones roles.
Acting: 6
When I think acting chops, please believe I’m not referring to Steven Seagal. It’s rough watching him spit out lines. The majority of the other actors aren’t really any better save for an underrated performance by Tommy Lee Jones. If you’re looking for quality thespians, look elsewhere.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
There are some quality shots here, although things are a bit jumbled at times. I do have to give credit to Andrew Davis as I’m sure it was a challenge doing a movie solely below deck of a ship. I definitely wouldn’t want that challenge. Not much to be desired, I appreciated he did the best he could with the little he was given.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Cheesy, but definitely leaves enough of an impact where I would watch it again. It’s a great movie to check out while folding clothes or doing any other mindless task. Steven Seagal definitely leaves behind some fun action moments that make the movie worthwhile.
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Cheesy? Sure. Original? Absolutely. It sounds ridiculous but I have to give the story credit for trying to branch out and try something new, especially during the early 90’s when martial arts movies were all the rage. It’s not winning any Oscars, but I’ve seen worse stories from movies that have tried harder.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that brings the movie to a nice close. I like that it fits perfectly in line with the rest of the cheesiness of the movie. Great way to wrap things up.
Overall: 73
For what it’s worth, Under Siege doesn’t do anything exceptionally well, but it doesn’t do anything terribly bad either. It’s a fun movie if you have time to kill. Definitely one of my favorite Tommy Lee Jones roles.