Rodent's Reviews
 

No plot spoilers contained in any of my reviews.

All of my reviews are given a neutral percentage rating, regardless of how much I like, or dislike, the film.
What I have devised however, is a symbol system based on my Avatar that shows my own personal feelings toward each individual film.
---

Young Guns
Ok, an older film but I thought, seeing as it's my favourite movie.

Based loosely on the Lincoln County War of 1878 and the beginnings of the Billy The Kid Legend. Film makers decided the use of 'Brat Pack' actors would be good for a serious movie and they hit on a very special cast.

For a start, the acting from all parties is spot on. Terrence Stamp as John Tunstall is (as always with Stamp) a very inviting character, mature, wise and mildly amusing.
Emilio Estevez as Kid is an inspired piece of casting, Estevez carries the Kids persona extremely well. Young, cheeky, trigger happy, streetwise and also naive.
Supporting/almost main actors include Jack Palance, Charlie Sheen (before he was apparently 'winning'), Kiefer Sutherland, Casey Siemaszko, Lou Diamond Phillips and Dermot Mulroney.
All in all, the handsome cast of 'good guys' teamed against Palance's group of grizzly, hairy bad guys makes you route for the Regulators even more.

The entire movie has a feel of being shot with a sepia filter on the camera lense, not a bad thing though, it adds to the authenticity of the Wild West setting.
The climactic gunfight scenes are wonderfully staged if a little slow to get going.

The bad points: It's loosely based on fact. Said to be the most accurate movie based on the Lincoln War, and I'd agree it is the most accurate film outside of a documentary, but it's still far from actual fact.
The Lincoln War it's self has more to it, which could have made for a longer, maybe more interesting movie.
Though throw those thoughts aside, crack open a bottle and enjoy a well made western.


One thing that will throw the audience is that, what appears to be an OTT gunfight ending, actually happened in real life.

My rating 90%.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 Remake)

It's always a mistake to remake any film, but to take an icon like Kruger (ok, Kruger's sequels weren't great but the original was cool) is almost stepping on hallowed ground.

The movie suffers from what I call 'Scott's Robin Hood Fever':
Take an idea and story, remove the slight campyness of the movie's villian and hero, remove the tongue in cheek giggles and completely remove the dash of popcorn fun...

... and then repeatedly and persistantly rabbit-punch the viewer in the face with the mentality of 'this is serious and real, you will be shocked and scared and sit in awe because this is serious and real'.
It just makes the whole thing fall flat on it's @rse.

Slow, tedious, basic teen slasher with no genuine explanation to how the teens in the movie are able to figure out in their heads what's going on around them, they just seem to know what's happening automatically. Coming from a bunch of teenagers who all, apparently, are thick enough to have no memory at all of when they were 5 years old. Seems slightly, no, massively like a bad piece of rewriting.
Maybe they saw the original Nightmare on their iPads.

The only good thing in the film is Jackie Earle Haley as Kruger. His twist on the character is fresh and makes it his own creation, but it's still not enough to warrant making the movie.

All in all, about as scary, as well written and as mysterious, as a 1960s episode of Scooby Doo.

My rating 12%

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Thanks for the reviews. :)

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

2012

Let's start at the concept. The Mayan calendar predicts that the end of the world will be in the year 2012.
Basing a movie on that would/could be a sound investment. Lots of action, lots of characters being brought into a web of storylines, lots of stuff blowing up and grand adventure.

I'm afraid it just didn't work. Not even with Roland Emmerich at the helm.
Now, Emmerich is the modern king of the disaster movie, Independence Day was a half decent film, Day After Tomorrow wasn't quite so good but still watchable.

2012 should hit all the right buttons with the huge budget and a director that knows his way around the genre.
Instead the only buttons being hit were when I'd actually started playing games on my phone instead of watching the movie. It's boring.

Bunch of people, all introduced in a very simple succession, none of them very engaging or hold the screen very well and reciting their lines as if they'd just read them from a cue-card.
Except for Woody Harrelson. He lifts his character from the page brilliantly and as always, Harrelson hits the spot with the paranoid acting he does so well.
Woody, cheers!

It just feels like a very linear, childlike storyline hidden under a very large blanket of computer generated close escapes.

The close escapes come thick and fast too. To the point that you're actually willing something to take out the characters so you can turn it off and watch something better. "Oh no, the Pilot is dead!" (voice from the back) "That's ok, I can fly!" is the premise for the half million CGI situations that are thrown at the viewer.

Ok, visually thrilling, the CGI is tip top but it's just not, well, thrilling.
Rated with a 12 certificate? Should really have been be rated a U...

... for Unwatchable.

My rating 15%. 10% of which is based solely on Harrelson's performance

Thanks for the reviews! I agree with your take on 2012. The multiple close escapes and shameless CGI use turned me off to it as well.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Cowboys And Aliens

Another 'western' from me, kind of.

Interesting concept based on a comic book of the same name and it certainly feels like it too. But mostly in a good way.

The way the two ideas are put to screen don't quite gel properly, though maybe that's down to the whacky idea in the first place.

Though in saying that, Cowboys And Aliens doesn't try to be a western, nor does it try to be a sci-fi. It's somewhere in between. A genre I've never seen before outside of a Dr Who episode or even the terrible Wild Wild West.

Daniel Craig is interesting as the rough and tough 'man with no name'. Similar in ilk to Eastwood, though Craig's story is explained over the duration of the film.
Harrison Ford is almost perfectly cast as a grizzled old war veteran with a heart. He does the job, but you can't help feeling sombody else could have done it better.
As too is Olivia Wilde as the beautiful western Damsel in distress. But with a twist.

Supporting cast from Sam Rockwell and produced in part by heavy weights Spielberg and Ron Howard, the movie almost can't go wrong.

As far as the writing and action goes, it's definitely a popcorn movie.
Fun, loud, storyline written about as good as it could have been, the dialogue well written and is well recited from the cast and the CGI is wonderfully rendered.
The film makers, especially director Favreau, at least had the gumption to hide the CGI based enemy in the shadows till the end. When unveiled, the Aliens don't disappoint either.

Seen as a low percentage scorer when it first hit cinemas, I think that should be ignored and let the viewer decide whether they like it or not.
Certainly a must see for anyone who hasn't, solely because of the chalk and cheese premise.

I for one am a believer.

My rating 75%

Cheers for the replies guys. I'll probably keep this thread going from now on for all my reviewing. More than likely it's all I will be doing on the site.
Love writing up my thoughts.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Cloverfield

Yet another movie using the Blair Witch style of shooting: Homemade video at it's best.
Maybe.

Billed by the film makers as an 'American Godzilla'.
An unknown, unexplained entity hits New York, tears up the place and is caught on camera by a bunch of 20 somethings who were enjoying a leaving party for one of their group.
Not much to say about the plot exactly, it's more of a run, scream, run some more, scream again then run away sort of premise.
There is a love story thrown into the mix though between two of the characters. Sadly, you don't really get attached to them enough to care if it works out between them or not.
The film does give you a connection to the characters to a point though, the beginning of the movie, before the city starts falling apart around them, allows you enough time to get to know them at almost a personal level and sets up the love triangle. But as I said, only just enough to make the smallest connection.

Slow to get going, but when the monster hits, it's all go from then on with only a few reprises in the action.
The CGI monster is rendered well too with footage kept to a minimum with only the occasional full on shot of it in all it's glory.
Definitely a good thing, it adds to the mystery of what the creature is and still allows your mind to process how wierd it is too.

The dialogue from the cast is extremely well recited, the home movie feel the makers wanted certainly comes out in the cast. It feels like they're ad-libbing their lines.
Very well done.

Many people I've spoken to said they wished you could see the monster more though. I can't help thinking, if you had seen it more, it would just be another Broderick Godzilla movie.
The other downside when the movie came out was the 'motion sickness' that the audience felt while watching. Ok, it is shot using the 'shaky handheld camera style', but it works brilliantly, and didn't make me feel ill in the slightest.

Then, with the film ending just as abruptly as it began, the viewer has to decide the beginning and the end of the story, ie; where the monster came from and what's the outcome?
There is a secret twist at the end, but as I said, no direct spoilers on my reviews, just keep your eyes open and you'll see it.

My rating 80%

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I loved Cloverfield! :D

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Likewise. I was actually pretty shocked by how much I liked it. On top of that, though, I have a deep meta-appreciation of it because it flaunts so many things I hate about modern movie marketing, like giving the entire game away in the trailer, or putting a higher priority on casting than on storytelling. Whatever one thinks of it, it's a great pushback against those sorts of things.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Cheers guys! What do you think of my style of reviewing? Hopefully it's working.
Glad my stuff is being read anyway!

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Leon

From director Luc Besson, who's style of film making is odd at the best of times, comes another highly improbable sequence of events that are somehow very engaging.

The plot evolves around a streetwise but extremely naive 12 year old girl Matilda (Natalie Portman) and hitman Leon (Jean Reno). Thrown together in an 'odd couple' situation after Portman's family are killed by crooked cops, led by Gary Oldman.

It shouldn't work. It really shouldn't work. The premise of the situation is unreal, odd and very provocative, which, oddly, actually forces it to work.

It's the way Besson presents the characters and the way the actors carry thier roles that's spot on.

Portman's Matilda is almost uncomfortable to watch at times due to the 'Lolita' essence that Besson has put into the character. Though Portman, even at that young age she was, carries the role perfectly. The naivity of the character is seen in a very real sense at times too.
Jean Reno acts Leon as being wonderfully withdrawn from reality. Leon seems to just follow events as they happen and deals with each outcome accordingly, never really planning ahead, occasionally he realises what's going on and gets uncomfortable when reality hits. Eventually coming to care for Portman as a father figure.
Now, as for Gary Oldman, where to begin? His drugged up DEA officer is menacing while onscreen yet you can't take your eyes off him. Twitchy, unstable and dangerous when provoked, which doesn't take alot either. Oldman actually makes the viewer feel uncomfortable even when he's not doing anything.
He's certainly a runner in my top 50 movie villians of all time.

The movie's humour tends to come from the awkward, mildly sexual moments between Leon and Matilda, which gives the movie a few 'shouldn't laugh' moments, but Leon's reactions are what makes it funny, as Jean Reno again, is spot on.

Though slightly unreal in the premise, all in all a momentarily funny and very engaging movie with a hit of action at the end. Not beautifully shot but certainly stylish and the characters are extremely well written and played.

My rating 74%

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Dreamcatcher

Based on a Stephen King novel, Dreamcatcher is about an Alien invasion in a remote mountain setting in Maine and four, (now grown up) school friends.

Starring Hollywood favourites Morgan Freeman, Tom Sizemore (Heat, Saving Private Ryan), Timothy Olyphant (Hitman, Die Hard 4), Jason Lee (Mallrats, My Name Is Earl) and Thomas Jane (Deep Blue Sea) and Donnie Wahlberg (Saw 2, NKOTB), the movie feels as though that's where all the budget went.

Though the actors do their jobs well, you never really get into the events happening around them.
Sure, there's some mystery at the start, but it's quickly and simply explained away, leaving the viewer with no real reason to keep watching other than for full on CGI action.
The beginning of the movie is probably about the best part, the 'buddy feelings' hit on by the main cast work well. But it isn't enough to hold the viewer.

The CGI effects are sub-standard too, as I said, the movie's budget seemed to go on the actors' wages. Plus, the creatures are shown near the start of the film, leaving the viewer with nothing to really look forward to.

The story also hasn't moved from King's book to the screen very well at all. It feels rushed, almost unfinished.
Some interesting concepts are their though, 'memory warehouses' and magical ways of finding 'lost things' give the aura of the film a different depth, but not much.

Sadly, it could have been a lot, lot better.

My rating 44%

I actually adored this movie a lot - The atmosphere, the sort of "coming-of-age" story, and not to mention one of the most hilariously scary toilet scenes ever.

well, not always. The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Fly, Cape Fear... all better than their originals if you ask me. though i do plan on staying away from this particular remake. thanks for the heads up.

welcome to Mofo. :)

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

hm, i've aways been semi-interested in Cloverfield... the trailer made reminded me of REC, which i loved.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Cheers for the input guys. I do try to be as fair as I can but tend to go with my gut more than often.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Alien 3, Theatrical Release vs Definitive Edition

A movie hit with budget cuts, internal arguments between producers, director and writers, storyline changes (before during and even after filming) and studio executives having no leniency or confidence with director David Fincher.

The story, set just after James Cameron's Aliens, involves Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) crash landing on an almost abandoned planet with an enormous yet run down and barely populated prison after her cryo-tube is ejected from the Sulaco mothership.

The usual happens, an Alien Facehugger follows her in the Emergency Evacuation Unit and eventually spawns an offspring which disappears into the prison.

At first, as usual, Ripley's magical tale of giant aliens with acidic blood and a mouth for a tongue is ignored by the powers that be (the prison super-intendant and his second in command). The Alien eventually runs amock, sending the prisoners and the prison staff into fits of panic by picking them off one by one.
Ripley eventually is looked to for help in fighting the creature while they all await a rescue ship from 'The Company'.

Theatrical Version:
The theatrical release of the movie is the version most people are familiar with. The Alien gestates inside of a dog that belongs to one of the prisoners.
This version contains a limited storyline as it was cut and shredded in the editing room against Fincher's wishes. It's also a good 30 minutes shorter.

It also contains limited interaction between the viewer and the actors/characters, many of the prisoners are nameless faces treated like cannon fodder for the Alien.

Only a handful of characters are expanded on for the viewer: Ripley, Dr Clemens (Charles Dance), Dillon (Charles S Dutton), Morse (Danny Webb) and Aaron '85' (Ralph Brown) and that's about it.

The Alien, gladly is kept to the shadows as much as possible and many of the attack scenes are shot relatively close up to put ther viewer in the midst of the action. Which works to an extent but can get disorientating.
The prison also is kept almost as secret as the nameless prisoners. The viewer never really feels part of the setting. Giant corridors that all look the same make the audience just as lost as the storyline.

Ok, the theatrical release is a marmite movie for fans, they either love it or hate it.
I'd say that it works as a horror and is a good film in its own right, but it feels unfinished and rushed. I didn't like it at first, but over the years, it grew on me.

Definitive Edition:
Now we're talking.
Fincher was put to making two similar beginnings to the movie, the theatrical version being the one the studio wanted, this 'definitive' edition being Fincher's prefered.
The dog in the theatrical version is never seen in this version, instead, an ox (used as a tractor by the prisoners) is the Facehugger's choice of gestation.

The story is expanded between the audience and pretty much all the characters, especially Golic (played by Paul McGann), a psychotic murderer and rapist who actually sympathises with the alien creature.
Most of the nameless prisoners now have speaking lines and the storyline feels much more finished and that more time has actually been taken in making it work.

A huge chunk of the middle of the film contains the same scenes as the theatrical release but with the extra/original scenes added back in, it gives the entire movie a completely different aura.

The bad point of the Definitive Version is also, sadly, the added scenes.

That might seem contradictory but the problem is this; The sound hasn't been looped in an editing room, which gives the added scenes a 'hissy' background sound. Some of the added original scenes are fine, others not so.

It's a shame really, as the Definitive Edition is by far a superior movie.

Though if you can look past the small sound problem, even if you didn't like the theatrical Alien 3, you'll certainly prefer this one.

Give it a go. I did, and even though I like the threatrical version, I'll never be going back to it now.


Overall Theatrical Version rating: 75%.
Overall Definitive Version rating: 90% (would be 95%, just the sound lets it down).

Me too! I actually just watched it again the other night for about the fifth time.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

The 'Burbs

Another older film from me again.
Starring Tom Hanks, Rick Ducommon, Bruce Dern, Corey Feldman, Henry Gibson, Brother Theodore, Wendy Schaal and Carrie Fisher.

An almost perfect neighbourhood is thrown into disarray when 3 wierd European people (the Klopek family) move in next door to Tom Hanks' almost perfect family.

Odd behaviour, from digging the garden in the rain at 2am and strange noises coming from their basement, to driving their garbage down the driveway to the curb and then thrashing it with a garden hoe, makes all the neighbours weary of the new arrivals.
To make things worse, the elderly man who lives alone at the end of the road, has now vanished without a trace.

Rather than phoning the cops, Ducommon who lives on the other side of Hanks' property ropes Hanks, Feldman and Dern into spying on the strange new neighbours using strange 'suburban legends' of murder and wierdos as a catalyst for their already growing paranoia.

Hanks, under the dissapproving eye of his wife (Fisher) starts to lose sleep and have nightmares when he does doze off.

Eventually, after mounting up evidence of what they believe is murder, Hanks, Ducommon and Dern decide to take steps and find out exactly what the Ghoulish family have been up to in the basement after the Klopeks go out for the day.

Is their paranoia going too far or has the strange family really been up to hijinks?

It's an odd design for a movie but it makes well with the feeling of paranoia that lives in every suburban area; Never knowing who your neighbours are.
The unreal premise is dealt with decently by getting the characters to do things you might like to do when wierd people move into your area.

The movie is also very, very funny with Hanks, Ducommon, Dern and Feldman on absolutely top form by playing it serious, which makes the whole, completely unreal premise even funnier and even more engaging and makes well with the slapstick comedy that comes through from time to time.
Directed by Joe Dante, the movie can't go wrong.

Certainly one of my favourites. My rating 80%

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Starship Troopers
Based on the novel of the same name, Paul Verhoeven’s ST is a futuristic sci-fi based on the concept of humans v giant insects.
Different to the novel, the movie follows a handful of school leavers who embark on a life journey by joining the military in the fight against ‘The Bugs’ (also known as Arachnids), a species of giant insect that live on the other side of the Milky Way.

As usual with Verhoeven, the movie undertones itself on political and social failures. Something not understood is destroyed or imprisoned.
Characters in the movie are totally blind to what the viewer is seeing ,which makes the movie work as it gives it a sense of realism.
The special effects in the movie, from giant spacecraft fleets and CGI soldiers to giant insects to even bigger beetles, all work with a relative ease. The CGI is flawless.
　
Only two faults with the movie: Hollywood beauties Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards. Their acting isn’t great though Van Dien makes the most of the lead role and actually improves his acting as the movie progresses.
Richards, as usual, doesn’t.
She’s wooden and doughy eyed whenever onscreen and tends to just pout when the going gets tough. Gladly though, her screen time is cut down to being that of a supporting storyline rather than a main character.
Their characters though, are well written and have a connection with the audience.

Supporting roles from Neil Patrick Harris, Michael Ironside, Clancy Brown and Dina Meyer give the movie some more well written and well played characters for the audience to care about.

Patrick Muldoon is particularly good as the smarmy 'villian' for Van Dien's chisel jawed hero, yet he still eventually proves his worth toward the end.

All in all a well made movie, great CGI, borrowing from a wonderful novel and Verhoeven is definitely at his best.

My rating 94%

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #11: Predator.
Ok, another alien sci-fi, but hey, it's my forte.
A heavy hitting cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers and Sonny Landham.
Based in a Central American Jungle, a Special Forces Group go in search of what they think is a Cabinet Minister and his company, whom found themselves lost across a National Border and end up captured by an enemy force.
Their mission is to go into the danger zone, find the V.I.Ps and bring them home.
They hit their targets with ease, these guys are the best of the best of the best…

… yet find themselves picked off one by one from a strange and upsetting outside force.


One of the men in the Special Forces group is seriously spooked from the deaths of his team-mates and says of what’s killing them off: "It ain’t no man".
Extremely guerrilla film making, relatively low budget with most of the cash spared for the special effects, this movie is an absolute must see for any sci-fi fan.

A well written yet extremely simple storyline make for even more entertainment.
The very well and simply written characters and their personas are even more of a bonus to the film.

Arnie is at his best, as too are the other actors for what they’re worth, the director John McTiernan has eeked the most and the best from the cast. Keeping in mind Arnie’s English was almost non-existent at the time of filming, both Arnie and McTiernan did an exceptional job.

One thing that makes the movie great, is the fact that even after only a short amount of screen-time, you still give a sh*t about the characters. Awesome.

If sci-fi isn’t your thing, still watch. Horror, intrigue and fear are the order of the day for any first time watchers.

The special effects, even for the mid-80s, are spectacular and have even set the benchmark for every Predator film that has followed since, yet has never been bettered.
A sense of claustrophobia is felt throughout the entire movie, the jungle setting adds to that and the sci-fi feel never lets up as you always feel as though you’re being watched by something other-worldly. Again, awesome.

By far the best, and probably ever will be the best Predator movie and very close to being the best movie in my Library.

The perfect horror for first time watchers with a chunk of action thrown in and, yet, also the perfect 'horror action' for 'vets' of the movie.
For me, just near the perfect movie.

My rating: 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Nice reviews thanks :)

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Predator is one of my favourite sci fi films. I like how McTiernan contrasts how they were able to take out an entire army division but are picked on one by one by an unseen enemy.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #12: Robocop.

Ok, I’m going for the older movies at the moment but Robo is one that needs to be reviewed by someone as new to the site as I am.
Yes, I know, also another Verhoeven movie.

Set in the future, a cop is gunned down brutally by a head gang of criminals.
After extensive surgery, he is turned into a modern ‘Million Dollar Man’ crossed with Frankenstein, though with no memory of his ‘human life’ from before.

An almost post apocalyptic look at the future of mankind sees the cop called Murphy attempt to find his past, and his future, by piecing together the technicalities that lead to his ‘death’.

‘Computer programmed’ as a ‘product’ of the police force and their officials to the point of almost mental incapacitation, he faces adversaries from not only the outside, but also from deep within.
Robocop is not just an ‘actioner’ or a sci-fi, or even a futuristic movie of death and destruction. It’s a long close look at where humanity is going.

The movie in a whole is so far ahead of it’s time that at 20 odd years ago, when the movie was released, it seemed far-fetched with the police uniforms and cars and society’s views and Military tactics involved in the film.
These days though, it seems on the tilting point of dated due to being only a few years behind modern day (2012).

An absolute masterclass in film making. Verhoeven’s take on the future is a spookily realistic and well visioned view of our future. Something Verhoeven is a master of.
Weller as the titular Robocop is another masterclass on the acting scale. Miming robotic bird movements and bringing a human element to a creature made almost entirely of titanium is a wonder. How he does it, is almost a myth.


Rob Bottin’s creation of Robocop’s armour and makeup (especially when Robo removes his upper mask) is a wonder to behold. It looks, even by today’s standard, genuinely real and has yet to be bettered in any movie I’ve yet to see.

What makes the movie really special is the quiet moments, where Robo is reliving some of his past ‘unerased’ memories. It’s something that really brings the audience on a par with Robo’s torn feelings of duty, love, humanity and sheer programming.
Mixed with the haunting soundtrack, the movie will live with you for a long time, if not forever.

Add to that mix some awesome shoot’ em up action scenes, explosions, black humour and melting men in vats of acid and you’ve got a sure fire hit.

Even if sci-fi isn’t you thing, again I say, this is still a must see. You haven’t seen a movie until you’ve seen this one. Just make sure you’ve got the popcorn ready.


I said that my last review, that #11 Predator was a near perfect movie at 99%.
100% to Director Mr Verhoeven, Writer Mr Nuemeier, Designer Mr Rob Bottin and the music by the wonderfully enigmatic Basil Poledouris.


My rating: 100%

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

The movie is based in the Antarctic, a group of scientists find themselves completely snowed in and cut off from the outside world during a heavy storm.
Norwegian scientists from another nearby science base and a husky sled dog all appear at their camp in less than comfortable circumstances, the group are then forced to defend themselves from the two unstable, trigger-happy Norwegians.
Upon checking out the Norwegian base to find out what happened, they find a scene of horror and torture and decide to bring back a terribly mutilated and inhuman corpse to their own camp for analysis...

... then the nightmare that overtook the Norwegian base becomes increasingly realised to the American scientists, as they are plunged into a world of pain, paranoia, sheer horror and a fight for survival against an enemy that can hide in plain sight.


Said by many to be a remake of the 1951 movie "The Thing From Another World", Carpenter's movie is simply based on the same novel "Who Goes There?" by John W Campbell.
The Thing is a closer take on the novel than the 1951 movie, which featured a 'man in suit' monster that resembled more of a giant vegetable crossed with Frankenstein’s monster.

Carpenter's masterpiece is a joy to behold. The tension of the cramped base corridors makes the feeling of being watched all the more potent and the paranoia between the characters can be felt by the viewer, right down to the toes.
There's also fantastic exposition, especially with the use of flashbacks seen on video recordings made by the Nords. It adds an element of untold mystery to the proceedings and gives the events much more depth and realism.


The movie's special effects are absolutely top notch, the collaboration between Rob Bottin and Stan Winston is very, very special.
Utilising animatronics, hand puppets and the very occasional ‘man in suit’ costume, the movie excels at putting the audience on the backfoot.
Only one, partially fake special effect is used in the entire movie in the form of a matt painting combined with Bottin's awesome mechanical effects, the rest is practical, real, juicy and extremely well modelled by the two effects geniuses.

The other thing with the effects and action is that they're used when needed.


The acting is also spot on. Kurt Russell, who is mediocre at the best of times, is wonderfully 'take charge' and tough when needed, his brooding take on the strange sequence of events works brilliantly.

Star turns from Wilford A Brimley, Keith David, Richard Masur and Donald Moffet make the characters work even better, these guys really hit their roles with perfection.
Keith David in particular plays with the audience's paranoia too with his more highly wound temperament.


Mix all that with Carpenter’s spooky, low tone soundtrack (a soundtrack that beats all of his others hands down) makes this another must see movie from me, especially before the ‘prequel’ (based at the Norwegian camp) is released this year.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Thanks for the review :)

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Thanks for the review :)

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Cheers mate. Currently working on both AvP movies.

After that, the Terminator franchise and then The Fourth Kind.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #14: Alien Vs Predator (AvP) and Aliens Vs Predator (AvP 2: Requiem).
Starting at the premise, a cross-over of two movie heavyweights, first seen by many in comic books, others in a particular scene in the movie Predator 2.

AvP.
AvP falls flat at the first hurdle: Game to Movie maestro Paul WS Anderson being director. He may be ok at converting video games, but movie-universe crossovers, he is not.
Let’s face it, Mortal Kombat is probably his best movie to date and even then that was a run of the mill all-action no-brainer.

The first film’s first good point starts with being able to successfully combine the two franchises relatively well. Though the overall plot is unbelievable, it works.

A company, owned by super-billionaire Charles Wayland Bishop, using satellites discovers a heat signature under polar ice.

A team of scientists, archaeologists and mercenaries is sent out to investigate the mysterious appearance and find themselves embroiled in a millennia long, macabre ‘tradition’ held by the Predator species.

The movie tries it’s best to be mysterious and brooding and tries to push itself into claustrophobic ‘haunted mansion’ territory.

Sadly, after all the build up, the mysterious back-story is slapped down with a very quick and simple explanation.
Usual of Anderson, get the story out of the way after a pretty good build up, then crack on with the explosions and fist fights.

Which is pretty much all the film is from then on after: Alien Vs Predator.

Another thing that the movie suffers with, is lack of snot and gore. Something the Alien and Predator franchises both utilise efficiently. It feels as though the makers wanted to dumb down the blood and guts to appeal to a wider, young audience.

Probably the best part of the entire movie is the acting.
Sanaa Lathan, Lance Henriksen and Ewen Bremner do their best to make the plot plausible, playing it as straight faced as they can.
The special effects are a close second. The CGI Aliens are well rendered.
Sadly, that's about it.

All in all, another no-brainer from Anderson, good for post pub 1am entertainment.

My rating 25%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png


AvP 2: Requiem.
For a start, a change in director is the best decision the studios could have made. The Brothers Strause definitley know what they’re doing.
Set barely minutes after the first film, the Predator ship from the first movie crashes in a small Colorado town, unleashing the Facehugger contents of their hold onto the unsuspecting town inhabitants.

For a start, this sequel is by far superior, the action, the writing, the more practical special effects all make for a much more fun movie. CGI is kept to a minimum, though when used, it’s used extremely well.

One fault with the movie is it’s very dark. I don’t mean in humour, I mean the lighting. Sadly some of the action and background shots can be missed on first viewing.
The only other fault is, as with AvP, the blood and gore is kept to a minimum. Though the filmmakers went in another direction: Shocks.
The movie excels and making the audience feel uneasy with some of the death scenes.

The acting is standard for the type of movie. Gladly though, it's believable, the cast aren't all huge names which gives the audience a connection to the characters.

AvP 2 tries to go back to basics with the look too. Think James Cameron’s Aliens crossed with elements of McTiernan’s Predator and set in a concrete jungle, on a similar note to Predator 2.
Another thing the movie utilises is a plotline from Alien 3, the Alien takes on the characteristics of it’s host. This time, the Alien has gestated inside one of the Predators though I’ll leave it at that, you’ll have to watch.

All in all, not a fantastic movie, fairly standard, but a superior movie to AvP.

My rating 42%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Not a big fan of Predator movies :nope:

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #15: Terminator Franchise:
The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines and Terminator Salvation.

The Terminator.

Set in the 1980s, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) is stalked by a humanoid machine sent from the future. Her only hope and help, is a man called Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn), also sent from the future, to stop the machine. If Sarah dies, the human race will become extinct as her (as yet unborn) son will become a freedom fighter and leader of the human resistance, in a war between man, and an entire army of these humanoid machines.

James Cameron’s sci-fi horror is a masterclass of how to make an expensive looking sci-fi, on a shoestring budget. Written absolutely perfectly, Cameron has made a well-established piece of movie history. A modern day fairy tale almost.
Being that the concept of The Terminator machine itself came to Cameron in a fever induced nightmare gives me at least, a respect for the depths of the human psyche and for Cameron’s imagination.

The film does suffer from slightly dodgy special effects. The stop-motion Terminator was mediocre at best even for the standard of the 80s.

What really makes the film’s effects a success though, is Stan Winston’s prosthetics on Arnold Swarzenegger.

By today’s standard, again, they are fairly rudimentary but they still work. You genuinely believe Arnie’s face is coming off.
Mix to that, not just the way the movie is written, but the way the movie is made. The direction, scene placing and overall aura of the subject matter are a joy to watch.

Hamilton, Biehn, Swarzenegger are all fantastic in their roles.

Hamilton is beautifully lost in the series of terrifying, far-out events and eventually becomes a tougher person as the movie progresses.
Biehn’s rough, tough, emotionless soldier of the future becomes more human-like as he spends more time with Connor.
Arnie is wonderfully wooden as the over-6-foot 500lb non stop killer machine.

All in all this fantastic roller coaster is one for the movie history books.

My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

Sarah Connor is once again embroiled in the fight for the future. Again, a machine is sent from the future to take out the leader of the human resistance, though this time, the target is John Connor himself.

Between the movies, Sarah has given birth and raised John with a military upbringing.
The movie begins after that sequence of events when Sarah has been locked in a mental institute and 10-year-old John, now seen by the authorities as a wild-child and criminal, has been put into foster care.

Again, the human resistance has sent another protector for Sarah and John. Not a mere man this time though, but a reprogrammed Arnold Swarzenegger.

Again, Cameron hits the nail right on the head. The movie drops most of the horror genre and goes on full out sci-fi action with only the occasional horror touch.

A bigger budget, utilised by the filmmakers perfectly, gives T2 even better effects and this time round, there’s beautifully rendered CGI in the form of the bad guy: A ‘liquid metal’ Terminator for Arnie to have a rumble with.

The action, when it gets going is fast, furious, explosive and is gladly, broken up by short spells of quiet acting from the cast. The movie is very well put together.

Hamilton is fantastic in the role of Sarah Connor, this time round she’s a rough, tough soldier, almost like Biehn in the first movie, though her dreams of the impending apocalypse have sent her beyond madness. She plays the role perfectly.
Edward Furlong, in his first role of any kind (he was picked off the street) isn’t perfect, but being that he had no experience, he still does a job that several actors since haven’t been able to better.
Arnie as the Terminator is again, wonderfully wooden at the beginning, though as the movie progresses, like with Reese and Connor in the first movie, he is able to take on and learn characteristics of those around him. Eventually he becomes more humane than the humans in the movie.
Robert Patrick as the liquid metal T1000 is an absolute wonder to watch. He has the emotion the original Terminator and has such a menace about him, you can’t take your eyes off him.

All in all a sci-fi popcorn wonder. File it directly under The Terminator in the movie history books.

My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines.

This is where things got messy for the franchise.
Once again, John Connor is thrown into a fight for survival. A female Terminator is sent from the future to take Connor out, Arnie is once again sent back to protect him.
Most of the scenes in this third outing are unintentionally funny. Some have been written to be funny, yet they aren’t.

The makers have turned the franchise completely in the wrong direction: Horror sci-fi to sci-fi action with horror, to…

… comedy? Oh dear.


The whole thing just feels cheap, cashed in, rushed, and a storyline that does nothing to expand on the existing material.
It tries to expand, but falls flat on its face. It just doesn’t try hard enough.

The action is explosive, grand and loud. It’s definitely a popcorn no-brainer.

The other thing with the way it’s been written is it’s very gimmicky.
A female Terminator who uses Nano-bots and is a cross between Arnie and Patrick, no Sarah Connor but John has a female accomplice and Arnie is a good guy again, it’s just, well, samey.

Arnie seems to just go through the role like he’s going through the motions. He’s got that wooden-ness that we’re all familiar with, but it feels unintentional this time round.
Nick Stahl as Connor is another huge mistake. The guy can barely get his lines out without shouting and breathing heavily. Is that really what an actor needs to do to seem serious?


The good point of the movie is the CGI used on the Terminatrix. It works great, but what made the first two movies special, was actually having practical effects mixed in too.
All in all a miss on the grandest of scales.


My rating 27%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png



Terminator Salvation.

Back to basics for the franchise, almost.
Relying heavily on action and with a decent story thrown in, Salvation works, it’s better than T3, but still, isn’t great.

This time round the makers have based the movie in the future. Set after the initial apocalypse, John Connor is a soldier fighting for the resistance, he’s not a leader yet and is talked down to by his commanders.

The mission of the movie is that Kyle Reese has surfaced in Los Angeles and is being hunted and targeted by the machines.
It’s up to Connor to save him and make sure that the future of mankind is saved, as Kyle is the one who will go back and protect Sarah.

That’s about it really as far as the story goes but the CGI action is very well put together. One thing missing from the movie though, are the scenes of the ‘future war’ that were shown in the first two movies: Dark, skulls everywhere and scores of Terminators fighting at ground level against battered and beaten humans.
The overall look of Salvation seems to be dumbed down from that apocalyptic look. Hopefully, if a sequel is released, it’ll be added back in.


Christian Bale as Connor does a good job, if very growly. As always with Bale, his physical presence on screen carries the character well.
Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese is almost spot on. Yelchin does a fantastic job at recreating Biehn’s speech pattern and accent, he looks the part too.
Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright is brilliantly confused as the mysterious man who is more than he appears. Though only very occasionally he misses his mark.
The movie isn’t perfect. It lacks soul, but is far superior to T3.

Though Schwarzenegger doesn’t make an appearance per say, his model of Terminator is seen using some exceptionally well rendered special effects.


All in all welcome return to a more serious kind of Terminator movie.


My rating 65%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Now that's better :yup: a big fan of the Terminator series even the bad ones :blush: Love the watch the whole 4 one after another on a cold rainy day :yup:

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

　
Review #16: The Fourth Kind.

The premise of the story is about a psychiatrist, Dr Abigail Tyler, trying to uncover what appears to be a number of abductions in a small Alaskan town. Supposedly based on a true story, the movie cuts between footage shot for the movie, with Milla Jovovich as Tyler, and real life footage of interviews with Dr Abigail Tyler.

Some scenes are split screen footage, showing both the ‘movie’ and the ‘interviews’.
It’s a hard movie to get used to at first, the way it’s shot throws the audience into a flurry of confusion though you can’t help but noticed that it’s intentional.
After a few minutes you get used to it, though some scenes are still hard to follow with split screen footage of both people, sometimes more, all talking at the same time.
The storyline is easy to understand, it's just the finer details that are jumbled into a group of chattering voices.

The movie seems a little rushed at times too, it seems as though the makers have tried to get as much stuff into the smallest amount of running time as possible.

Jovovich too, seems to be fed up with the whole thing and appears at times to be giving attitude when delivering her lines. It’s as if she’s pi$$ed at being part of it.

Acting support from Elias Koteas does give the movie some weight. When he’s around, you feel safer. Koteas is probably the best thing about the movie.

Some of the time the viewer can feel bored, there’s not much in the way of story. For what appears to have been made as more of a detective/mystery story, it’s something that really should have been built on more kindly.

The real life footage is a good point. It feels real, though at times feels staged, it works at putting the viewer into the subject matter.

Another good point is there are genuine moments of shock and Jovovich and Koteas carries the tension well.
Some of the ‘jumpy’ moments are very well conceived and give the viewer a heartfelt judder and most of the time you never know what exactly is going to happen next, but it’s not enough. The movie feels bare and meaningless.

All in all a genuinely jumpy movie that's good if you want to get the girlfriend a little closer, but the shooting style is empty and confusing.


My rating 34%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Ranking Terminator films:

The Terminator
Judgement Day
Rise of the machines
Terminator Salvation

The first is the best imo. :) Its been a long time since I last saw Rise of the machines and Terminator Salvation.. but i love both of them.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #17: Jurassic Park.

The premise, by Michael Crichton is a partially fact based scientific endeavour to bring Dinosaurs back to life using preserved blood found in fossilised insects.

Let’s start at the movie: John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), a multi-squillionaire with delusions of grandeur has set about and succeeded in turning an entire island into a theme park full of unnatural-abominations.

After inviting along two scientists (Sam Neill and Laura Dern), a chaos theorist (Jeff Goldblum) and a lawyer (Martin Ferrero) to the park while his own grandchildren are there (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello), things inevitably take a turn for the worst when fences fail from a power cut.
The group, who are all now separated into their own survival stories have to hide and run in a desperate attempt to restore power to the park and call in the helicopters to take them home.

The movie as a whole is extremely well made. The character build up and strong acting make the movie very weighty.
Sam Neill with Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello are a chalk, chalk and cheese buddy-trio-movie in their own right.

The story adapted from the novel differs to the novel in many respects but is still extremely well written.
The cast is not just extremely good at what they’re doing, they fit the theme.
The movie is also shot beautifully. It’s very grand in feeling. Some of the sets are also extremely spooky.

The special effects used were not just cutting edge for the time (1992-1993), they still beat most movies of modern times. The ILM and Stan Winston Studios collaboration is very special.
Most of the computer work for the dinosaurs had to be created solely for the movie (albeit adapted from existing technology). What makes the movie’s CGI special is that the movie-makers asked a very simple question: "What is impossible?". Then they achieved the impossible.

The main place that the movie fails, is that it’s extremely loosely based on Crichton’s fantastic novel.

Anyone who has read the book will know that, as always with Spielberg, things got dumbed down to a more friendly atmosphere for a wider audience. There are substantial changes in the characters and character deaths.
Even so, at rated PG in Britain, which basically means anyone can watch (under 13s with supervision), I still wouldn’t let my own children at 5 and 6 years old watch it just yet. All I’m saying is Raptors In The Kitchen.

If the filmmakers had stuck to the book and Spielberg had been a bit braver, the movie would/could/should have been a hell of a lot better.

At time of release, the movie itself was so big it stayed in cinemas in my local town for nearly two years.

All in all a popcorn movie with a decent story and some genuine scary bits.


My rating 86%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #18: Pirates Of The Caribbean. The Curse Of The Black Pearl, Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End.

Let’s start at the first movie:

The Curse Of The Black Pearl.

Started as a project based on the Disney ride, Black Pearl is a movie that has invigorated the Pirate Genre.
Cutthroat Island starring Geena Davis tried it, but it failed worse than miserably, pushing the genre back to the point of obscurity.

Screen writers Ted Elliot, Terry Rossio, Stuart Beattie and Jay Wolpert thought differently.
Getting Gore Verbinski as director was another wise move, his natural imagination is a wonder.

For a start, using the famous Disney ride as a platform is a mark of genius. They’ve expanded the ‘story’ of the ride beautifully and have created a world of pure imagination, urban legend, slapstick, raw humour, love, terror and action.

The premise of the story revolves around the Black Pearl, a pirate ship who’s crew carries a curse. All they want is to lift said curse and get back to ‘honest pirating’.
Mixed into that, Captain Jack Sparrow, an original Captain of the ship, just wants the ship back in his command and Will Turner, a young blacksmith just wants to get back his one true love, Elizabeth Swan, from the cursed crew who have kidnapped her. She’s also a Damsel-In-Distress with a difference.

The movie is wonderfully playful, very tongue in cheek and, extremely well and beautifully shot.

The acting is absolutely spot on, the actors seem to just know their roles inside and out from the get go. There’s no messing around finding their place.

Johnny Depp in particular is fascinating as Jack Sparrow. He’s become a legend of the pirate world in only a very short time. Intelligent and sly yet loveable and beautifully charismatic.
As too is Geoffrey Rush as Captain Barbossa. He’s the perfect south-western English pirate, evil, cunning and knows exactly what and where he’s going, only occasionally fooled by Sparrow.
Orlando Bloom as Will Turner seems a little held back at the start but when the going gets tough, his role really reveals it’s self.

As for the special effects, particularly when the computers are brought into play for the cursed crew, they certainly don’t fail the eye. They’re raw, animated and work extremely well for the subject matter. The one on one between Barbossa and Sparrow is fantastic.

The on fault I’d say with the film is that it could do with a little more scope. It feels relatively small scale in terms of story and universe.

All in all a fun ride with some perfect writing and characters that really hit the mark, definitely the modern Swashbuckler.


My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Dead Man’s Chest.

The first movie was supposedly set as a stand-alone film, though, this is Hollywood and Black Pearl was such a huge hit, the sequel was inevitable.

Further more, it doesn’t disappoint. Not by a long shot.

The story revolves around Davy Jones and his crew and Jack Sparrow. Sparrow owes a debt to Jones and, obviously, doesn’t want to pay. Jones will stop at nothing to get what he’s owed. This time, Elizabeth Swan is called into the story as not just the Damsel-In-Distress, but as a force in her own right after Will Turner is the one in need of help after Davy Jones takes him aboard his ship. A kind of reversal in Will and Elizabeth’s storyline.

As a whole it’s bigger, brasher, funnier and grander and hits the nail on the head in almost every respect.

The action is brilliantly choreographed and the CGI is even better. The movie does tend to rely on more CGI than it’s predecessor, but it’s utilised perfectly for Jones and his crew, who mirror Barbossa’s crew from the first film as being cursed (to an extent).

Again, the acting from all parties is bang on the money. There’s expansion on some of the existing characters and a few new faces to add to the various pirate crews, though it’s easy to follow and fun to watch, the writing is brilliantly put to screen.

Nighy in particular, as the Scottish ghost-boat Captain Davy Jones, made it to #1 in my top 40 movie villains of all time. He’s absolutely brilliant.

A fault with the film is that Jones and his crew’s story is kept under wraps. You get a taster of their past, but nothing more. No real expansion.

All in all it hits the same places as the first movie but is a better movie and a brilliant piece of writing again from Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio.
Verbinski’s direction is another piece of artwork.


My rating 97%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



At World’s End.

The third of the original trilogy feels a bit of a step backward sadly. It’s better than the first film, but not as good as the second.

It suffers from Star Wars syndrome.

The movie revolves around Barbossa, Turner and Elizabeth having to rescue Sparrow from Davy Jones’ clutches in a desperate attempt to bring together the ‘Pirate Lords’ in a final stand-off against the East India Trading Corporation who in turn, are using Davy Jones and his invincible crew as a weapon.

The whole universe of the pirate world created by the writers is expanded on extensively, there’s more Swashbuckling, more wonderfully rendered CGI (in many ways the CGI is better) and the cast of actors are still, all hitting their roles with perfection.

The movie’s storyline is extremely well put together, it’s relatively complicated but easy to follow, the expansion of character storylines and additions of new characters is something that, as I said, the second movie lacked.
This one has it all in that respect.

But, sadly, this movie also has its faults.
It feels as though the whole thing was pieced together in a rush to get it done before people lost interest.
It feels very gimmicky. It’s more ‘actiony’, even with the expansion of the universe and the storylines and goes more toward a feeling of seriousness rather than the tongue in cheek humour of the first two.

Almost to the point of becoming a parody of the genre that the first two films have successfully recreated.
　
All in all it’s better than the first, but a step backward from the second, still though, it is a fun ride to take and wonderfully grand in scale.


My rating 96%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #19: The Dark Crystal.

One of my childhood favourites.

Designed, written and directed by Jim Henson and Frank Oz, The Dark Crystal is based on an imaginary land that has been plunged into darkness when an all-powerful crystal was shattered.

A young Gelfling called Jen, a kind of Elf type creature, has to take a legendary journey to repair the crystal and stop the evil forces known as the Skeksis race, from ruling forever. That's really about it for the story, there are a few extras thrown in, but not much.


The movie itself took 5 years to make, mainly due to the fact that the entire thing is made with puppets. There are no real living things on screen.

It looks fantastic, Henson and Oz really know how to build a world based on imagination and being that it’s the first movie of its kind, it’s as well made as it probably could have been.

The puppetry, not just in how they’re used, but also how they’re made is fantastic, the Skeksis and Mystics are wonderfully realised and brilliantly modelled.

As for the story, it’s a strange one this, it works on so many levels yet is incredibly simplistic, to the point that a child could have written it.
It’s very open too as most of the mysterious happenings and characters are very quickly explained leaving nothing really to build on in a mystical way. It’s a shame really though there is a small twist at the end that even I didn’t see coming.

Some of the dialogue is childlike too, though it doesn’t take away that the Skeksis and some of the other characters are genuinely disturbing and also very engaging.


The movie as a whole is definitely a kids movie, it’s rated PG in Britain though personally I’d refrain from showing it to under 5s, but it will still appeal to adults just the same with the darker characters and darker subject matters involved.

All in all, not a brilliant movie but worth watching for the brilliantly conceived puppets and puppet work and the fact that the world created by Henson is a wonderful trip to take.


My rating 65%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #20: Tremors.

For my 20th review, I decided to use one of my all time favourites.

Set in a valley in the Nevada desert, a handful of residents in a tiny little town called Perfection are subjected to a hidden terror when large, unseen underground creatures appear and start picking them off one by one.

The movie mainly revolves around two handymen, Valentine McGee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Bassett (Fred Ward), who unwillingly become the ‘go-to men’ for the group.

The cast involved are fantastic in the movie, they all play it real which makes the funny moments even funnier and the jumpy horror moments even more of a surprise when they happen.
Fred Ward (who is another mediocre actor in my book) is at his absolute best as the grumpy, almost wise elder of the main duo.
The biggest surprise of the cast though, is Michael Gross as the gun loving survivalist Burt Gummer. In the past his acting has gone from mediocre to worse, his acting in the Tremors sequels is abysmal. In this film he is absolutely brilliant. He encapsulates his character with a seriousness and when needed, is able to carry the comedy too.

The film itself is a cross of many genres: Comedy, horror, monster flick and almost, a ‘modern day western’ with the setting, characters and date.

The comedy comes from real reactions and down to earth acting. The film’s funny moments are very well choreographed, Tremors utilises reality in unreal circumstances extremely well. A lot of the humour has an undertone of ‘tongue in cheek’ too. It’s lots of fun.

Then there’s the jumpy/horror moments, they’re very well put together. They’re ‘actiony’ as well as gory, but they also give the viewer a real sense of excitement and the occasional fright.

The special effects are, like most films of the time, all practical, there’s no CGI used in the film and the effects certainly don’t let the viewer down. They’re raw, gory, slimy and very well modelled.
Tom Woodruff. Jr and Alec Gillis’ physical creations of the writers’ original idea is such a realised concept that the movie really comes into its own.

The thing that lets the movie down, is that it’s a little on the short side, only 90 minutes of running time. I couldn’t help but want more after the film had finished.

The worst thing about the Tremors idea though, is the awful cash-in sequels and even worse TV series that it spawned.

Forget the sequels, I beg the audience to treat the movie as a stand-alone film.
All in all a joy ride of a comedy-horror.


Lot’s of fun and well worth 90 minutes of your time.


My rating 93%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Nice reviews. Big fan of the first Tremors here too. Didn't particularly care for the sequels. They never seemed to recapture the spirit and inventive fun of the original.

Dark Crystal was also a childhood fave. I re-watched finally about a year ago to see how it held up compared to memory, and it's a very decent dark fantasy-adventure for kids.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

oh man, haven't watched Tremors since the 90's. i might have to revisit this one soon. thanks for the reviews.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Cheers for the replies guys.

Coming soon: Paul. Full Metal Jacket. Demolition Man. Dumb and Dumber. Ridley Scott's Robin Hood.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #21: Paul.

What was a largely anticipated movie from creative wizards Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, comes a relatively disappointing turn of events.

Paul, an Alien who crash lands on earth decides that he wants to go home and with the (initially) unwilling help of Pegg and Frost he heads off across America on a buddy road trip.
Cue lots of situation-nostalgia-placement and too-many-to-count ‘nods’ toward the major sci-fi movies and TV series’ of the last 50 years.

Ok, some of the comedy in the film works. A lot of it is well realised and well written, occasionally it borders being laugh out loud but it’s just too much when scene after scene after scene after scene after scene (and so on) are very large and very painful slaps across the face with tributes to other movies.

The movie as a whole works to an extent. It successfully encapsulates the feel that it wants to. I just don’t think everyone else wanted it to.


Paul as a CGI character is by far the best thing in the film, he's fantastically rendered and very realised in the way he looks and moves. He's certainly the best CG character I've seen since Golum.
Seth Rogen as the voice of the character works, but could have been better. He feels a little wooden at times.


By far the worst thing about the film is Nick Frost. His character on screen is extremely bland and very wooden.
Obviously, while filming, the CG Paul wasn’t there, so the actors had to pretend, but Nick’s acting lets you know that Paul wasn’t there. He just recites his lines like a kid in a school nativity play.
He’s extremely disappointing to the point that all the work that went into making Paul’s character work, is shot down by a fat guy who can’t act.

There are people who will defend the film. I’m just not one of them.

All in all, if you want a Frost and Pegg film, watch Hot Fuzz or Shaun Of The Dead.


My rating 34%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #22: Full Metal Jacket.

Based during the Vietnam War, the movie starts with a bunch of new recruits in the Marine Corps. Initially following their adventures in the basic training programme then following some of them when they’re shipped off to fight the war.

The beginning of the movie, though brutal and realistic, is incredibly funny and extremely engaging. The young school leavers are thrown into a world they’ve never seen before and the humour comes from their uneasy relationship with their Drill Sergeant.
The relationship between Private Leonard Lawrence (aka Private Pyle) and the rest of the group, in particular with the Sergeant is extremely laugh out loud and at times even cringe worthy, right up until the end.

After the initial hit of humour, the movie takes a serious turn when the setting moves to Vietnam. The brutal and harsh conditions faced by the soldiers is brilliantly portrayed and very real. The movie tends to delve into how the soldiers feel about the war but still has the occasional hit of humour mixed in too.


The main fault with the movie, is that even though the second half of the film is just as well made as the first, it doesn’t quite have the same appeal. It’s much more raw, which can put a lot of people off.


The acting from all parties is absolutely brilliant, Matthew Modine as the main character the film follows is at his absolute best as the naïve recruit who physically changes over the film into a well trained U.S Marine.
R Lee Ermey as the tough Drill Sergeant is absolutely brilliant, a role so infamous that has often been parodied in many a film, even by Ermey himself. He absolutely steals the first half of the movie.

Even if Vietnam War movies aren’t your thing, it’s worth watching for the basic training.

All in all a very well made Vietnam War flick, though the second half is a little more of a Marmite question, it’s well worth your time.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Review #23: Demolition Man.

Set in the future, this highly implausible action movie still seems to push all the right buttons.

In present day, cop John Spartan (Sly Stallone) is charged with the deaths of hostages in a botched rescue, he is frozen in suspended animation as a ‘jail’ sentence. At the same time, an ultraviolent Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes) is also frozen as he was the one who initially kidnapped the people.

In the future, Phoenix is released to find that the place is a giant utopia of peace and tranquillity. He immediately sets about showing the softy residents and police officers how it’s done ‘old skool’ and goes about trying to make the city his own.
So Spartan is released also. They need an old fashioned cop to catch an old fashioned criminal.

As you can imagine, with Sly and Snipes in the lead roles, from then on it’s all smash and crash and cheesy one-liners for 90 minutes.

It’s a fun no-brainer, primarily aimed at mid-teenaged boys and the acting is about standard for the type of smash-em-up movie it is.

One thing that doesn’t make sense, is that this utopian future is based solely in one city after the event of a massive earthquake. What about the rest of the world outside? Surely this is the movie’s biggest plot hole.

Snipes in particular is fun, doing all the things most of the mid-teens watching would like to do.
Stallone is at his usual.
The supporting cast works well, Sandra Bullock is wonderfully out of place amongst the action and Nigel Hawthorne is, as always, very natural in his surroundings.

All in all a loud, brash no-brainer that shouldn’t make sense, yet in a way, does.
My rating 73%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Review 24: Dumb and Dumber.

One of the finest comedies ever made. Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunn (Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels) are two hopelessly dippy individuals looking for a better life, yet do nothing to actually make it happen.

When Lloyd comes into possession of a briefcase belonging to what he thinks is his one true love, Mary Swanson (a beautiful looking Lauren Holly before she went skinny). The pair head off on a road trip to return the case to Mary and hope she "plucks them into the social pipeline".
Unknown to them, the case actually contains a ransom for Mary’s husband and they’re being followed by a hitman who wants the case for his boss.

After that, the movie goes from funny, to laugh out loud, to hysterical, to pant wettingly hilarious. It’s incredibly well written in terms of humour.
Every line spoken in the movie is either a double entendre or is something that one of the duo has misunderstood.

Be warned though, the movie contains a lot of rude and crude humour too, including Lloyd’s reactions to an attempted male rape and Harry’s poopy-toilet scene after Lloyd spikes his drink for a vengeful-laugh.

It also has it’s fair share of buddy moments, Carrey and Daniels have brilliant chemistry throughout the entire movie, they bounce off one another perfectly and when the occasional hit of tragedy strikes, you really feel for them.

The acting, overall, from all parties is spot on.

The only fault with the film as that it’s just not long enough. You want more and more and more.

All in all, the best comedy I have seen to date outside of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.


My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #25: Ridley Scott's Robin Hood.

For something that is based on a series of 1000 year old, incomplete ballads, Robin Hood is something that is never seems to leave the mind of the populous.
The movie is set before Robin Hood’s legend of ‘robbing from the rich and giving to the poor’.
It’s more of a lead up to the legend. How Robin came to be the outlaw we all know and love.

Sadly, it’s a very confused story, it takes elements of the legend, elements that are seen during the robbing and giving, mixed with some new stuff and crosses them over.

Some elements are completely ignored from the original ballads, for instance how Robin and Little John become friends.

The problem is also the seriousness of the movie. Robin Hood is a campy legend. Always has been. I’m not just on about the movies of the past, I’m on about the original ballads too.
Any self-respecting Englishman will know that Scott’s take on Robin is a pile.

As far as the story goes, sadly, what Ridley Scott and his team of ‘writers’ decided to do, is steal all of the most inaccurate ideas from all of the other Robin Hood films of the past 100 years.
Then they decided to confusingly modge them all into a giant cake full of disappointment.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the original legend.

I understand that Scott wanted to update the legend but I’m afraid it just didn’t work.
　
The movie as it is though, is actually quite entertaining, the action is pretty well choreographed and exciting, but that’s about it.
The acting is about standard for the type of movie, it’s not bad, but nothing that should win awards.
Think Gladiator but without the charisma.


The only thing that’s really going for the film is that it’s fairly close to being historically accurate with it’s look and feel.
Now, I’m not an expert, but I am a student of history and I know that Scott’s movie is relatively close with setting, props, character attitudes, costume and even the accents.
Russell Crowe was hammered by film buffs for his accent when the film came out. I will defend him though, he’s not far off the truth.
I guess these critics know little of English history.

The sequence of events is a load of tosh though, which lets down the only thing the film has going for it: Accuracy.
　
All in all an entertaining movie if you know nothing of Robin Hood, for me, it’s worse than Costner’s accent.


My rating 17%, mainly for the historical feel
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Somehow I had completely glossed over this thread until now. Some very nice reviews. :yup: Even if I don't agree with all of them - I'd give Leon and Jurassic Park a hgher rating, and the Pirates... sequels a lot lower. But other than that very close in my views with you.

Oh and Tremors is a cracking little film. Forgot about it on my previous top 100 list, will be under consideration for any update.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I adore Demolition Man. It's one of those 20-30 films that could have, on another day, made my top 100. :up:

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Thankyou for the feedback guys. It means a lot. It's nice to know I'm being read.

Currently working on the Superman franchise. The review will be with you very shortly.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #26: Christopher Reeve Superman Franchise (Superman: The Movie, Superman 2, Superman 3 and Superman 4: The Quest For Peace) and Superman Returns.

Based on the comic book super-hero and a movie franchise that has shaped the franchise since.

Superman: The Movie.

The premise of the first movie is around Kal-El being sent to earth by his father and mother, as the planet Krypton is due to be destroyed by a natural disaster.
Upon his arrival on earth, he is a small child and is discovered by a friendly, homely couple called Martha and Jonathan Kent. They raise him as their own on their farm and name him ‘Clark’.
Eventually the day comes for Clark has to leave home to discover his heritage after finding a green crystal in the barn amongst the wreckage of the comet/ship that he came to earth in.

After 12 years of study in the hidden Fortress Of Solitude, he returns to the world as an all-powerful "Super Man" and moves into the city of Metropolis and, as Clark, he gets a job as a reporter with The Daily Planet Newspaper.
After only a day or so, he shows himself to the world and is dubbed Superman by his Daily Planet Newspaper work colleague, Lois Lane.
What awaits him though is arch criminal Lex Luthor. A brilliant mind yet is, as always, slightly inept at taking on the Supe.


It’s a beautifully shot movie, the action scenes are extremely well choreographed and the writing of the characters is absolutely spot on.
The story contains many aspects of great cinema, tragedy, seriousness and tongue in cheek humour. Mix to that a great cast who can carry all of these aspects, you’ve got something very, very special.

The acting too is fantastic.

Hiring the unknown Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent was a mark of genius by the filmmakers. He doesn’t just change his acting style, his physical appearance changes too. As the Supe he’s tall, powerful, confident and very charming. You genuinely believe he is indestructible. As Clark, he slouches, becomes uncomfortable and bumbling, incompetent in most situations and he carries the role in a way that nobody else could have even imagined. Reeve has the perfect split personality for a super-hero.
Margot Kidder as Lois Lane too is a mark of genius. Ok Kidder’s other films are almost unheard of and her acting has never been great, but as Lois she really shines. She was born to play the role.
Gene Hackman is another great choice as Lex Luthor. Hackman is as always, fun to watch, engaging, theatrical and campy as the villain.
Ned Beattie as Luthor’s dummy sidekick Otis is an absolute marvel to watch. He’s incredibly funny and Valerie Perrine adds some sexy-class as the gangster’s Moll.

The movie’s effects are a little primitive by today’s standards, though at the time the effects were absolutely cutting edge. Though today, they do still work.
You genuinely believe a man can fly (ahem).

The only thing that lets the movie down, is that you can tell some of the scenes are experimental. A movie like this had never been made before and though the makers did a fantastic job, their naivety occasionally shows.


All in all, one the finest super-hero movies ever made. Often copied, never bettered. A definite must see.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Superman 2.

Set not long after the first movie, Clark has settled into his duel role of Clark/Superman.
He’s found feelings for Lois and she too has found feelings for the Supe, let’s face it, all the girls in the city love him. She treats Clark quite ignorantly though, he is after all just a nerdy work colleague.

The main story revolves around three other people however.
Superman has unwittingly released kryptonian villains General Zod, Ursa and Non from their prison.
Kal-El’s father Jor-El had imprisoned the three villains in the ‘Phantom Zone’ at the beginning of the first movie before Krypton was destroyed.
Supe’s destruction of a nuclear weapon in space has cracked the ‘zone’ and freed them. They’re now heading for earth, endowed with all the same powers as Superman.
Upon realising Superman is the son of their jailer (Jor-El), they make their prime objective: To enslave and crush him and then rule the rest of the world.
Aiding them, is a returning Lex Luthor.

Cue lots of destruction and plenty of fistfights between Superman and the three super-villains.

There is a twist in the story for Superman himself too before he is able to fight the villains.

The film, like the first, is a masterclass in how to stage a super-hero movie. The writing and storyline are again near perfect. It starts off small and then rapidly grows in scale to something more thrilling.

Again the acting is bang on.
This time round the cast involves Terrence Stamp as Zod, Sarah Douglas as Ursa and Jack O’Halloran as the mute powerhouse Non.
Stamp made it into my top 40 movie villains at #15. He’s very camp, inhinged and is the epitome of the super-villain.
Sarah Douglas adds more sexy-class as a villain-ess and O’Halloran is perfect as a giant brute with absolutely no intelligence.
The special effects are utilised with more pizzazz than in the first. The money was very well spent, in particular on the four-way Metropolis fight.


To be honest, in terms of faults, I’m finding it hard to find any. Maybe one thing would be the use of the miniatures in the special effects. Ok CGI was unheard of at the time, but every now and then the miniature work is too obvious.


All in all, believe it or not, it’s actually an improvement on the first, better in every way. Another definite must see.
My rating 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Superman 3.

Sadly, this is where the Superman series started dropping off the scale.
The movie revolves around Gus Gorman (played by Richard Pryor). He’s an unwitting and unwilling computer genius, hired by his corrupt boss to control satellites in a bid to destroy his rivals’ businesses.
Superman of course throws a spanner in the works and becomes the target of the villains’ custom-built super-computer.


The movie itself is a product of its time. Super computer paranoia and weather changing satellites.
It goes heavily toward comedy too and steers clear of the elements that made the first two so special: Tragedy, tongue in cheek humour, campness and action.
It’s very slapstick and cliché. Turning Superman into a bad guy could have been worth while, but with the simplistic way he gets out of his predicament, it just didn’t work.


The defining feature is Pryor. He adds his own personal touch to the comedy and plays his role brilliantly, but he’s out of place in the franchise.
No show from Hackman.
Margot Kidder is written out of this one too, she appears briefly but isn’t seen throughout the rest of the movie.
Reeve is as always spot on.


All in all a hit and miss affair, mainly miss. Worth watching if you’re under 10 years old.


My rating 70%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png



Superman 4: The Quest For Peace.

This was the final nail in the coffin for the Supe. Written on an idea by Reeve himself but slashed budgets and infighting within the studios the movie suffers terribly.
The movie is another product of its time. This time based on Nuclear War. Superman decides to destroy all the nukes in the world by throwing them at the Sun.
Luthor returns and attaches some of Superman’s DNA and a computer chip to a nuke. Somehow it creates a super-villain with all of Superman’s powers. Luthor then pits his creation against the Supe.


It’s an extremely bad piece of movie making. The story could have worked but the way the movie was made just feels incredibly cheap.
The special effects were obviously cut from the budget. They look cheap and make the poorly shot action scenes even more lacking.

Many of Superman’s ‘solves’ to Nuclearman’s attacks are simply rewound footage of the catastrophe he created. Yes, really!


Supe and Lois are put together in a kind of love story and Reeve and Kidder are able to carry the roles ok, but they seem fed up with it all. Kidder is also starting to look too old for the part.

Mariel Hemingway is incredibly wooden as Clark’s new squeeze.
Mark Pillow as the super-villain just isn’t very threatening. He just shows his teeth and frowns a bit.

Jon Cryer as Luthor’s nephew is just annoying as a kind of ‘yo dude’ character.
Hackman is probably the best part of it all. He hits his role professionally as always and never misses a beat.

All in all, miss this one. It’s the worst movie I’ve ever seen.
My rating 0%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png



Superman Returns.

A nostalgic turn from the filmmakers brings the audience some of the magic from the first two movies.
The storyline evades Superman 3 & 4 and carries on after the events of Superman 2 as if 3 & 4 didn’t exist.

It revolves around Clark doing some searching. Scientists believe that they have found Krypton using powerful telescopes and he has just returned from a journey to see if it really is there.
Upon his return to earth he discovers that Luthor has been released from prison and has stolen Supe’s crystals from the Fortress Of Solitude and plans on using them as a weapon.

The simplistic story works, but it’s just not enough. Brandon Routh as the Reeve-looking Superman works to an extent, but he has none of the charisma of Reeve and he barely changes character when playing Clark.
I can’t help but feel that the movie needed more than just the gimmick of nostalgia. It needed expanding, I’m not sure how, but it needed it.
Ok, Supe’s twist at the end is something I didn’t see, but it still needed something braver.


The best part of the movie by far is Kevin Spacey as Luthor. He doesn’t try to emulate Hackman. He turns the role into his own and makes it better in the process.
Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth do an apt job at pretending to be Reeve and Kidder, but they just aren’t.

The movie as a whole is entertaining. It’s just a very nostalgic miss on all fronts.
There’s not much else I can say about Superman Returns, though I really wish there was…

All in all, worth a watch, but it’ll leave you just as quick as it makes its impression.
My rating is a mid 50%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Oh yeah I missed that one. Would have that a bit higher as well. It's also one that I considered for the tail end of my top 100 list. Might make it next time round

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #27: Batman Begins.

At first, I was extremely dubious about a reboot of the Batman franchise. After the debacle of Schumacher’s attempts I really thought the franchise in the movie world was dead and buried.

Christopher Nolan really has proved me wrong.

Batman Begins is literally that, how he becomes the Bat. Borrowing from the source material (the comics) and some of Burton’s Batman too, mixing in a few new things and an updated selection of Bat-Gadgets on the Utility-Belt, Batman Begins really hits the nail on the head on how to make a super-hero movie.

It revolves around Bruce Wayne’s parents being murdered and the subsequent slump of self-pity and depression he falls into over the following years.
After a soul-searching trek-of-the-world and studying various martial arts forms and getting into trouble with the law in various countries, he comes across an Illuminati who call themselves The League Of Shadows.
He’s trained in their forms of fighting and secrecy and eventually returns to Gotham City with the full intent of using his new found mentality and skills to strike fear into those who prey on the fearful.
Awaiting him though, are forces he cannot comprehend.

The movie is very well shot.
The Gothic feel of past Batman movies has been dropped slightly, it’s more brooding and moody than being Gothic.

The action feels a little held back but when it gets going, it really goes well. The filmmakers had the sense to make the action ‘just enough’ rather than going into the first movie with all guns blazing. It’s very cleverly put together.

The acting also is fantastic.
Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman is a brilliant choice. Some people say he’s a little too gruff when speaking his lines as Batman but I think he does the job well. He plays his naivety well at the beginning too. Bale took the physically demanding role so seriously, he bulked up his muscle mass too much and ended up having to actually lose some weight before they could fit the Bat-Suit.
Michael Caine as Wayne’s Butler, Alfred, is a perfect choice. He’s warm, funny, engaging and down to earth and is tough when needed. Alfred’s character this time round is more human too. He doesn’t beat around the bush when telling Bruce the truth. Caine is fantastic.
Gary Oldman as Detective Gordon is a marvel. He looks and acts like he’s jumped directly from the page of the comic book. Absolutely brilliant.

The only thing that lets the movie down is Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes (Bruce’s long time friend). She’s only on screen for a short time but you feel she’s just an add on, even when the character is placed in jeopardy. Holmes gives an apt performance, but Holmes herself just feels out of place.
As too is Cillian Murphy. Like Holmes, he plays the character well, you just feel as though another actor could have done it better.

The little cliff-hanger at the end between Batpants and Gordon really makes you yearn to watch the sequel.

All in all a near perfect starter for a super-hero franchise.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Review #28: The Dark Knight.

This movie is the defining point of the franchise so far.

It’s based around The Joker and his unbending need for destruction. He’s been hired by the various mob bosses of Gotham to take out Batman. The Bat has basically destroyed their businesses and had most of their employees locked away.

The mob didn’t count on how incredibly dangerous and unhinged The Joker turns out to be. In the words of Alfred: "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Again, the movie is shot perfectly, this time round they used IMAX cameras to give the screen a depth to it. It looks beautiful and detailed.

The broody feel of the first movie is still there, though it’s toned down slightly. The movie feels more open to the visual aspect of a real city.

The expansion of certain characters is worked on, especially Gordon. You see how he goes from being a standard cop to the 'Commissioner Gordon' we all know and love.
As too is Alfred, though it’s brief, there is a small insight to his background.
The writing is fantastically put together.

The Joker’s evil twist on literally pitting everyone against everyone is an absolute masterclass in how to write a real villain.

The way The Joker destroys Harvey Dent at a personal level is very well conceived.

As for the acting…
Star turns again from Bale, Oldman and Caine. Katie Holmes is replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, a wise move.
There’s a wonderful turn from Aaron Eckhart too, who acts both of his roles absolutely perfectly as ‘Gotham’s White Knight’ Harvey Dent.



Now, The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger is something I was dubious about before I saw the movie.
Everyone was raving about his part in the movie and I couldn’t help but think, "It’s only because he died not long after making it". I was never a fan of Ledger or his movies, to be honest, I thought he was a mediocre actor at best.

After seeing the film, I hold my hands up now.

I was wrong.

Heath Ledger, who made it to #2 in my top 40 Villains, is by far the best thing in the movie.

Ledger spent a month in isolation in a hotel room with the script, just acting out the role before shooting even began.

You can tell too. He’s seriously uneasy to watch though at times he’s funny too.
The humour is more of a dark, black humour than the comic-book-Cesar Romero-Nicholson humour that we’re all used to.

Ledger’s portrayal of a hyperactive, giggling psychopath is almost primordial and is very disturbing. Especially his eyes and the little ‘ticks’ he occasionally shows.

As ledger, he’s completely unrecognisable. He is The Joker.



All in all, better than the first and even if Batman isn’t your thing, it’s worth watching for Ledger’s performance.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #29: Ghostbusters.

The movie initially wasn’t made as a kids movie, it was intended to be an adult tongue in cheek comedy based on a premise of ‘firemen who catch ghosts rather than fight fires’.
It just proved popular with 80s kids, including myself and eventually a dumbed-down-for-kids sequel and entire franchise of cartoons and toys were spawned off the back of the movie.

This review is about the original film.

The movie starts with Ray Stantz, Peter Venkman and Egon Spengler (Dan Ayckroyd, Bill Murray and Harold Ramis, respectively) slacking off and taking a relatively lax approach to paranormal study at their university. Ray being the most upbeat and normal member of the brainy trio, Egon the brainier scientist and Peter being a brilliant mind also but very down to earth and extremely lazy when it takes his fancy.

Shortly after making what they perceive as a breakthrough in their ‘work’ on the paranormal, they’re kicked out of university for basically being slackers.

They take their research and some money they make from selling (an unwilling) Ray’s house, using their combined intelligence and their companionship, they start up a business in Paranormal Investigations and Eliminations as the Ghostbusters.
Unbeknownst to them, they’re being watched by outside authorities and their research has shown a massive spike in paranormal activity around the city of New York that stems from a particular building near Central Park.

After a woman who lives in the building comes to them and explains some of the strange things she’s witnessed there, it’s up to them to investigate and stop whatever lurks in the building.


The movie takes itself seriously at times, when it does, it works very well, the jumpy scary moments are fantastically put together.
Most of the time it utilises humour and extremely subtle timing as a catalyst for the comedy.
The dialogue is also extremely funny and very well delivered by the cast.
The whole movie is, in the words of the makers, "One long, very well written joke".

The action, though quite short and sweet, is well choreographed and uses the limited special effects brilliantly. Ivan Reitman’s direction is superb. It’s exciting and staged wonderfully.

The actors too are extremely comfortable in their roles.
Murray in particular is at his absolute best, he plays the role with an ease not seen outside of Groundhog Day or even Scrooged.
Ayckroyd is as usual, he’s funny, upbeat, offbeat and very engaging as the ‘heart of the Ghostbusters’.
Ramis does a fantastic job as the fungus loving brainbox, Egon. You really believe this guy is the Einstein of the 80s.
Ernie Hudson is introduced halfway through the film as the ‘everyman’ of the story. His character is used initially as the guy who gets the scientific stuff explained for the audience. He plays the role with a coolness and down to earth. He’s very likeable.
Sigourney Weaver, who at the time was mostly famous for her tough role in Alien is perfectly cast as a relatively homely and very scared Dana Barrett, (now Venkman’s love interest), she has a real connection to the audience and has wonderful chemistry with Murray. Her role becomes a key point of the paranormal plot too.

A special mention should go out to Rick Moranis. His character, Louis Tulley, is very, very funny. Though not seen a massive amount in the film, he too is an important role in the plot. Moranis actually ad-libbed most of his dialogue and movement too, which makes the character even funnier.


The one fault with the movie, if you can call it a fault:
The effects of the movie are a Marmite question for a lot of people.
When the effects are first seen in the hotel during the Ghostbusters first job, they hit the audience with a delightful shock.
After that, some of the effects can let some people down, they’re very cartoony. The filmmakers have said in the past it was due to a limited budget rather than a style choice.
I say, if the effects were any different, it wouldn’t have worked as well as it did. It adds to the movie’s feel of not taking itself too seriously. They're bright and colourful, lots of fun and make the movie stand out a mile.

Add to all that, fantastic sound-effects (particularly the Proton-Packs) and a stomping theme tune you've got a very special movie.

All in all, an absolute classic 80s film. Funny, engaging, occasionally frightening and brilliantly cast.


My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

I bloody love Ghostbusters. Another of the films that came close to making my top 100 list. Even Sigorney Weaver can't ruin this film for me. In fact, I kind of like her in this. :goof:

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Cheers matey, you'll like my 30th review, I've got something special planned for it but you'll have to wait a day or two.

It's going to take me that long just to write it up. It's masseeeve.

Review #30: Star Wars Franchise, Episodes 4-6 and Episodes 1-3.

For my 30th review, I thought I’d ping up something special. A favourite of most, a nightmare for others.
All 6 Star Wars movies in one big review, in the order they were made, starting with A New Hope and ending with Revenge Of The Sith.


Episode IV: A New Hope.

What was initially set as a stand-alone movie under the title of Star Wars, it has become something that has shaped the movie world forever. It’s hard to imagine how big the movie was at the time of release but it broke the mould in many unbreakable places.

Set in and around an ongoing war between the evil Galactic Empire and a group of Rebels, a young farm boy called Luke Skywalker dreams of leaving his hum-drum life and heading out among the stars to fight the evil Empire.
Holding him back is his uncle, Owen. All Owen wants is for Luke not to end up like his father, Anakin.

Upon buying androids (C3PO and R3D2) from some Jawa (alien) traders, Luke is plunged into a world of mystery when R2D2 suddenly plays back a recording of a woman in distress and is asking for the help of somebody called Obi Wan Kenobi. Luke makes an assumption that Obi Wan may be related to Old Ben, a kind of old hermit who lives not far away.

The following morning, R2D2 has vanished and Luke and C3PO go looking for him, in the process they stumble across Old Ben. Ben watches R2D2’s recording and asks Luke and his droids to help him in fighting the Empire. Luke turns down the offer, but forces outside of Luke’s control push him into following Ben out into the stars and off to grand adventure.
Along the way, Ben has told Luke about the truth of who his father was and that he will teach him about an almost extinct way of life, the life of a Jedi and how to harness and use the powers of a mystical force known simply as The Force.
By the end, Luke joins the Rebels and pits himself against the Empire’s greatest weapon, the Death Star.

The movie is a benchmark for not just sci-fi, but any and all adventure and action films.
The story and the characters, the setting and settings, in fact the entire universe that George Lucas created when making the movie is incredibly realised. It’s dirty, grimy, well used, old and feels very real.

Almost every detail has been thought about, from the sounds to the creatures to the vehicles. It’s incredibly original.
It’s as the movie’s start sequence says, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away".

It’s small at the start and grows into something far grander, then grows some more.

The movie contains hits of humour too. Mainly between Han Solo and Chewbacca as a soul-mate duo and between the droids C3PO and R2D2 as another soul-mate buddy couple. The droids in particular are laugh out loud at times, especially when they argue.

The special effects in the movie add another depth to the story, they’re extremely well developed. Even today, they hold up against most CG films.
The acting in the movie is exceptionally well directed. Lucas had the gumption to hire unknowns in the lead roles, with the exception of Sir Alec Guinness as Old Ben and Harrison Ford as the space pirate/smuggler Han Solo.
Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher were moments of genius. Hamill’s naivety as an actor makes the character’s naivety work even better and Fisher is absolutely perfect as the young but educated Princess in distress.
Alec Guinness as the old, wise wizard is a marvel. He encapsulates the character and lifts it from the page wonderfully.

Initially, Harrison Ford was only hired to help the casting director with reading lines for the other applicants, thankfully, they saw something in him and took him on as Han Solo. He does a tremendous job as the dashing, cocky, self-assured yet occasionally bumbling, loveable space pirate.

Ford and Fisher’s on screen chemistry is wonderful too. They start out hating each other, but you know deep down they fancy each other. They bounce off each other brilliantly.
As for characters, Darth Vader, who made it to #4 in my Top 40 Villains is an absolute icon of the well made and realised movie character. He is the epitome of theatrical evilness. With James Earl Jones voicing Vader, he has the screen presence that rivals anyone else.

A fault with the movie? Hmm. Not a lot really.
There are times you can tell that the film is the first of it’s kind. The odd show of naivety from the filmmaker/s shows through in the writing and direction, but it’s so easily missed, it barely makes a difference.

What makes the movie really hit home though, is when it’s tied in with John Williams’ brilliant, unforgettable and iconic soundtrack.

All in all, one of the finest sci-fi/space movies made. Everything about it shaped the genre and is still held in many respects as the God of modern film.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

Being that Star Wars was said to originally be a stand-alone movie, the fact that it was such a huge hit, Lucas decided to expand his idea into a full on franchise and redub Star Wars as Episode IV A New Hope.
We, the audience were then treated to Episode V.
The story revolves around Luke doing some more in-depth study into the Jedi ways that Ben showed him in the first movie. He’s been drawn toward a distant planet to find a man called ‘Yoda’. Upon arriving, he discovers Yoda is actually a little green goblin looking thing that speaks in a strange way. Though Yoda is more than meets the eye.

In a separate storyline, Leia and Solo have been fighting their feelings for one another, or that’s what Solo thinks anyway.
Solo has another mission too. He has to face the brutal gangster Jabba The Hutt, who has put a bounty on his head.

Introduced to the story is an old acquaintance of Solo’s, a man called Lando Calrissian.
After an attack from the Empire, Solo, Chewbacca and Leia have fled to Lando’s city for refuge, unwittingly though, they’re heading into even more danger, especially for Solo.

It’s up to Luke though, after seeing their predicament in a ‘vision’ he heads off to save them, leaving his new mentor, Yoda, to brood.

Cue one of the biggest plot twists in movie history and something that nobody could have seen coming.

As a sequel, it’s another masterclass in it’s own right. It far outweighs the original.

The universe is expanded extensively and there are more highly original characters and settings, planets and societies seen in the film.
It’s a much grander look at the new universe that Lucas created.

The story too is far more extensive. It’s easy to follow but has many, many subtle levels and sub-stories. The introduction of new characters is another easy to follow point but allows the movie to broaden its horizons vastly.

What hits the movie hard though, is that it isn’t the average ‘hero wins at the end’ kind of film. The ending is a rather sombre cliff-hanger. Relatively downbeat and leaves the audience wanting more.

The cast are all still on top form. This time round Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian is an added element of coolness and charm. He’s like Solo, but with more money and political power.

The special effects are another far bigger and better element of the movie. Obviously the success of the first movie allowed Lucas to pile more money into them and it really shows. The sets too are far grander.

Again, like with the first film, I’m finding it very hard to find any faults with the movie. This time round Lucas’ naivety has vanished and the change in director has ironed out all the creases of Episode IV.

All in all a vast improvement on Episode IV’s already perfect lead up.
My rating is another 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi.

Revolving around Luke living with the aftermath of the plot twist in Episode V and a rescue attempt of Solo at the beginning.
Luke eventually then takes up his training again with Yoda and has many of his questions answered about that plot twist.

Yoda then gives Luke a new mission. He must face and defeat Vader and become a fully-fledged Jedi Knight. One thing that stands in Luke’s way though, is that Vader’s Master, The Emperor, has decided to show his ugly mug and will be there when Luke and Vader clash their lightsabres together one last time.

Leia, Solo, Chewbacca, the droids and Lando take their own separate line again too, a Rebel attack is forming against a new, more powerful Death Star. It’s up to them to lead the attack on various fronts and stop the Empire’s new super weapon.

The third of the original trilogy is a darker looking take on the franchise. Its brooding, moody atmosphere can put people off but it’s an element that really makes the subject matter work.
The subject matter in question is Luke, Vader and The Emperor in a three-way battle to turn Luke and his new found Jedi powers to the Dark Side Of The Force. It’s a brave move but it hits the nail on the head.

It’s a very low tone movie and takes a more serious turn of events too. The comedy and humour seen between the main characters in the first two movies is dropped and replaced with a more depressed feel.

There is still some comic relief in the form of a tribe of primitive space-bears called Ewoks. The tribe becomes an important plot device in helping Solo, Chewbacca and Leia in their fight against the Empire. So it’s not a total loss on the humour front.

There isn’t much of an expansion in the universe either, but the film certainly utilises what the first two built so well. It’s more of a ‘wrap-up’ for the franchise rather than another ‘build-on’ movie.

As for the effects, they seem the same as in Episode V. There’s no real improvement as such but they’re certainly not lacking. I think that the technology of the time was at its peak and basically, they couldn’t improve any more than they already had.

The acting from all parties is again, spot on. By now the actors knew their roles and have aged well with the franchise, both mentally and physically and it shows through their performances.

Sadly, the bad point is the lack of swashbuckling charm that was seen in the first two films. It’s a more linear movie in terms of writing and there’s little in the way of expanding the world that Lucas built.

All in all it’s a slight step backward from the first two, definitely a step back from Episode V though it’s still a romping space adventure and is a wonderfully brooding end to a fantastic build up.
My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

After years of waiting, the fans of the Star Wars franchise got what they wanted, but sadly, not what they wanted.
Set 30 years or so before Episode IV, the movie revolves around the Trade Federation placing a blockade of their battleships around the planet of Naboo.
This of course brings the Galactic Senate into play. They send two Jedi Knights, Master Qui Gon Jin and his apprentice Obi Wan Kenobi, to bring an end to the trade dispute (the Jedi in this movie are as Old Ben said in Episode IV, "Guardians of Peace and Justice").
In turn, this causes the Trade Federation to act irrationally under the orders of a Master Sith Lord called Darth Sidious and they land a ground invasion of the planet.

Queen Amidala of The Naboo, under the protection of the Jedi and must do everything in her power to either politically stop the invaders, or resort to more violent measures to save her planet and her people.

In the midst of this is a young boy called Anakin Skywalker who has been spotted by Jedi Master Qui Gon as being very powerful with The Force. Qui Gon takes Anakin under his wing and introduces him into the world of the Jedi, without the consent of the Jedi Council.

It’s a very simplistic story that feels very simplistic. The original pull of Episode IV was that the simple story was utilised and expanded with decent writing, touches of tragedy and subtle humour. Lucas seems to have just gone for a simple story laced with amusing characters called Jar-Jar Binks and slapstick frog looking CG creatures. Then smeared the whole thing with brightly coloured CGI and high-speed chases.

It’s very cashed in. You feel great when the movie starts, but after around 25 minutes, you start getting fed up with it all.

The CGI isn’t great looking either, with the massive amounts of cash and talent thrown at the movie, it should have been a hell of a lot better than just an expensive cartoon.

The acting, well, Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor as the Jedi Knights are spot on. They’re fit, athletic and have studied hard at the sabre fights. They carry their roles perfectly too. McGregor in particular is fantastic as the young Alec Guinness. A very good choice of actors.
Natalie Portman is apt as Queen Amidala but nothing that will win awards.

Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker is one massive mistake from the filmmakers. Ok he’s only a young lad, but surely there are other kids out there that can actually act.
For such an important role, Lucas really missed the mark. If a young enough actor couldn’t be found, why didn’t Lucas just age Anakin’s character a year or two to make sure the role was acted properly?

The story involves an almost love story between Anakin and Amidala. They make friends when they meet and the actors try their best at working with Lucas’ lacklustre writing, but it’s just not believable.


One of the biggest let downs of the film is Lucas’ new take on the Jedi way of life in regard to The Force.

Apparently this all-powerful force that surrounds us and binds the galaxy together is actually a bunch of microscopic creatures that live inside all living things.
I’m sorry, but where the hell did that come from, George?
It would appear you’ve completely smashed a major plot point for the entire franchise. Bell*nd.
　
Before I carry on with this review, I’m just popping out into the garden for a minute. I’ve got some battery acid that needs pouring on my award-winning Rose Garden…
　
… aaah, much better. Now, on with the review.


The action though, I will say, is very well choreographed. Visually it’s exciting and fast paced and the lightsabre battles are the highlight of the movie. But sadly, that’s about it.

Episode I, was the most anticipated movie in history. The question being asked by fans was, "Where did the story begin?"
Sadly, it started in a thrown together excuse for a prequel hidden under a blanket of CGI.

Add to that, Qui Gon Jinn’s use of a tarted-up Ladies’ Sensor Excel Leg-Razor as a communications device and you’ve got a sure-fire stinker.

All in all a disappointing start to the new trilogy.
My rating 22%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Episode II: Attack Of The Clones.

With the debacle that was Episode I, you’d have thought Lucas would have learned his lesson and improved the new trilogy. Sadly again, he didn’t.

The movie revolves around Obi wan Kenobi’s and Anakin Skywalker’s adventures around the galaxy.
A bounty hunter named Django Fett has been hired as a mould for a Clone Army, ordered in secret by a (now dead) Jedi Knight.
Obi Wan is sent to the planet Kamino to investigate this disturbing event and let the council know what the truth of the matter is.
Anakin has been reassigned to protect Amidala (now a Senator) as an unknown party and an unknown assassin have targeted her for termination.

Anakin and Amidala’s love story is expanded on as they spend more time together alone in hiding. Eventually finding a common ground and falling in love.

Anakin’s feelings of jealousy toward other Jedi and his delusions of grandeur show a hotter side to his temperament. Eventually a murderous side surfaces when he returns to his home planet of Tatooine and is met with family tragedy.
Obi Wan in the interim has discovered more about the Clone Army and has discovered that the Trade Federation are still up to no good and are working alongside another Sith Lord called Count Dooku and an alien race called the Geonosians to build a super weapon.
Eventually Obi Wan is captured while snooping and Anakin and Amidala decide to rescue him.
In the meantime, the Jedi Council have gathered all the nearby Jedi and are also heading to Obi Wan’s aide. The Jedi have utilised the Clone soldiers too, to aide them in fighting Dooku, the Trade Federation and the Geonosians.
At the end, Anakin and Amidala marry in secret.

The movie is far more action orientated. It’s full of chases and sabre fights and relies extremely heavily on CGI.
The movie as a whole feels as though Lucas wanted to stick the characters in as many different (and unentertaining) CG cartoon situations as possible.

Yoda, C3PO, the Jedi, the Clones and even Django Fett are all, at some point, turned into a CG character.
R2D2 can apparently fly now too.


It’s incredibly gimmicky and cliché. It’s almost an experiment in what they can do with CGI.


You can tell also that Lucas didn’t have a single set built for the film. It’s all green-screen. All of it.
The writing too is substandard.

Lucas’ take on romance between two beautiful young people is incredibly cringe-worthy.
A child could have written it in crayon and still given it more passion and chemistry.

McGregor is again spot on though as Obi Wan, but you can see he’s starting to wonder what he’s doing in such a pile.
Portman is more wooden this time around. Though she tries her best with the poor script, she seems fed up too.
Count Dooku is a mild highlight. A star turn from Christopher Lee brings a touch of campness to the movie. Eventually though, he too is turned into a CG character.

Anakin Skywalker is again, played by a complete muppet.
Hayden Christensen has absolutely no charisma and recites his lines as though he’s forgetting them as he does so.
He also has no chemistry with love-interest Portman. He’s apt with a lightsabre though but sadly it’s just not enough. Two great big thumbs down from me. He’s actually worse than Jake Lloyd.

To be honest, I’m finding it hard to find a good point on this one. Even the huge Jedi/Clone fight on Geonosia is a bit of a miss affair. It looks thrilling and flashy, it’s just got no substance.

I’m thinking the storyline is better suited to Star Wars than Episode I was. Anakin’s darker side is expanded to an extent, but it doesn’t save the movie.

All in all the worst of the Star Wars franchise, a better story than Episode I but still not anything worthy of the Star Wars title.
My rating 17%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith.

Almost back to basics for the franchise.

Revolving around Anakin’s fall into the Dark Side Of The Force.
He has been sent with Obi Wan to rescue Chancellor Palpatine from the clutches of another bad guy called General Grievous. Grievous is the commander of a droid army and is working along side Dooku. Both however are under the command of Darth Sidious.
After the rescue of Palpatine, they all return to the planet of Coruscant (home of the Jedi Council and the Galactic Senate) and Anakin meets up with Amidala.
She drops the news on him that she is pregnant with his child. This tears Anakin’s feelings inside. Does he stay with her and admit everything to the Council and risk his future with the Jedi, or keep everything secret with her and risk being caught out?

In the meantime, Obi Wan has been sent on a mission to recapture General Grievous without Anakin by his side, which upsets him even further.
To make things worse, Anakin’s having visions of Amidala dying in childbirth.
Finding solace with Chancellor Palpatine, Anakin has his ego blown up by Palpatine’s praises and seeds of doubts are also sown when Palpatine says the Jedi don’t trust Anakin. Palpatine starts sowing seeds of temptation when he mentions that the Dark Side is much more powerful than the Jedi’s power.

With seeds sown, Palpatine reveals his true purpose in the story and Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side is completed when he kills a Jedi Master. Upon meeting the newly appointed Emperor, Anakin is redubbed as Darth Vader.

It’s now up to Obi Wan and Yoda to bring an end to this startling turn of events before Vader’s murderous rampage wipes out all of the Jedi in the galaxy.

Episode III is by far the best written of the prequels in terms of story.
Lucas’ dialogue is still childlike but the story is far superior to the first two.
It’s complex and yet is still easy to follow.

There isn’t a massive expansion in the universe per-say, but the expansion of the Anakin/Emperor/Amidala/Kenobi circle is very well pieced together.
Anakin’s fall, (though loosely told in this review) is a very realised sequence of events. It’s very real in the fact that Anakin doesn’t realise he’s actually now a bad guy.

The effects of the movie, though heavily CGI, are much better placed than in the first two prequels. They’re less cartoony and edge more toward real looking. They’re also utilised in a more viewer friendly way rather than just smashed into your face with colourful abandonment.

The action in the movie, particularly between Obi Wan and Vader is an absolute joy to watch. They really went all out for the sabre fight.
It does go a little awry when they throw some CG fire and explosions in there though. All the audience needed was Kenobi Vs Vader.

As for the acting, Hayden Christensen is quite a shock as Anakin. He must have had acting lessons between the two movies. He’s still not perfect, but he’s certainly improved.
McGregor and Portman do apt jobs as usual and Portman and Christensen have more of a chemistry on screen this time round too.

The movie as a whole is similar to Return Of The Jedi. It’s darker and more brooding than its predecessors. It’s much more violent too, it’s the only Star Wars movie to be rated higher than a PG. In Britain it carries a 12 certificate.

All in all not a perfect movie, still nowhere near to the original trilogy, but far superior to Episodes I & II.
My rating 55%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Wow,you really put some effort and thought into it...good work, although I did like alien 3 a lot..

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I too love Ghostbusters. Would have made my top 100 list a few years back but I think I've watched it too often now and the impact has lessened a touch. Will need to leave it a while and return to it fresh.

Love Batman Begins as well and massively preferred it to The Dark Knight, which I just found too dark and depressing. I felt Begins got the mix between gritty action film and fun superheroics just right.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Cheers guys. Once again I'm glad my reviews are working.

I've got some special movies lined up for the next week or so:

Review #31: Critters.
Review #32: The Matrix Trilogy.
Review #33: Arachnophobia.
Review #34: Gremlins and Gremlins 2.
Review #35: The Shawshank Redemption.
Review #36: Walking Tall.
Review #37: Ransom.
Review #38: John Carpenter’s The Fog.
Review #39: Dog Soldiers.
Review #40: The Shining.

Assuming that's The Rock version of Walking Tall, may I recommend this.

http://uk.movieposter.com/posters/ar...in/14/MPW-7354
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070895/

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

How did you know? :D

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I really liked Dog Soldiers, thought it was a great movie, looking forward to see what you think.

Lucky guess? :D

Yeah, Dog Soldier's rocks. :cool:

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #31: Critters.

Low budget horror flick that was part of the 1980s Puppet Creature Feature market. Other favourites include Troll, Ghoulies, Gremlins and Munchies.

A handful of tennis ball sized aliens known as ‘Crites’, who have escaped from their space prison, crash land on earth just outside a small town called Grover’s Bend.
They then make their way to the nearest farm (owned by the ‘Brown’ family) and cause them a whole night of havoc and terror. Hot on their trail though are two Intergalactic Bounty Hunters.
Upon eating various farm animals and the occasional person too, the Critters start growing in size and become a more formidable foe.

It’s a brilliantly made movie that uses the ‘people trapped in house’ plot as it’s basis.
The movie also heads out into the town too when the Bounty Hunters arrive and the ‘fish out of water’ premise is utilised when they can’t seem to find the Crites and the town’s folk don’t take them seriously.

There are elements of all sorts of genres too. Many regard the movie as either sci-fi or horror.
It’s actually a modge of all sorts: Tongue in cheek comedy, gory horror, shocker, claustrophobic haunted house style and sci-fi.
It mixes all the elements really well too.

I wouldn’t say the shooting style is any better than any other movie of it’s type but it’s very well put together in terms of action, shocks and acting.

Scream-Queen Dee Wallace Stone and Billy Green Bush as the wife and husband Heads of the Brown family are very well played by both. They have an on-screen chemistry and a homely comfortableness about them.
Nadine Van Der Velde as the daughter is spot on as the teenage daughter and beautiful Damsel in distress (sort of).
Billy Zane makes his second ever movie appearance as Nadine Van Der Velde’s new squeeze. Being that he’s on screen for a short time, he’s actually a memorable character.
Scott Grimes plays the main part of the cast as the youngest of the family. Even at such a young age Grimes really shines in the role as the mischievous scamp who’s got an old soul about him. You knew even back then that Grimes has a long career ahead of him.

The effects of the movie are a touch dated by today’s standard but they work with the low budget shooting style of the film really well.

The characters too are well realised, especially the Crites (who are also ''puppeted' brilliantly too) and the Bounty Hunters are brilliantly original.

The only thing that lets the movie down is the pretty weak writing for the ending, but for budget constraints and the feel of the movie, it does kind of work.

All in all it’s a funny, shocking, mildly gory but relatively standard sci-fi-comedy-horror and is a very close runner up to Gremlins in the Creature Feature genre.
My rating 89%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I just rewatched Critters 1 & 2, I haven't seen them since I was like 12 so it nice see them again. It's always funny to watch stuff like that and see what you thought was so scary when you were a kid is now just funny and Critters is just so bad that it's good, nice review. :)

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #32: The Matrix Trilogy.

The Matrix.

An original take on alternate realities, The Matrix revolves around a computer hacker calling himself ‘Neo’, who feels that something isn’t right with the world he lives in.
A group of strangely dressed and oddly acting people appear in his life and explain that they can ‘free’ him from the constraints of a humdrum life and can explain to him exactly what this concept of The Matrix is.

He takes up their offer and falls into a world of intrigue and mystery and super-human powers.
Eventually he unwillingly realises that he will become the most powerful of these people and will lead them to victory in an ongoing war that’s taking place in another reality between man and machine.

The movie as a whole is very well put together. It keeps the air of mystery going throughout the entire running time. The audience follows Neo’s journey of discovery brilliantly. The ideas of the discoveries are kept under wraps until Neo discovers them, putting the viewer on a par with the character’s surprise and shock.

The effects too are fantastically developed. The first movie of it’s kind, on a par with Jurassic Park, the filmmakers actually invented certain technologies to make their vision come to life and in the process they coined the phrase "Bullet Time".

The filmmakers went toward a lot of practical effects too, rather than just full on CGI.
The entire film is also cutting edge in its design, especially some of the plotlines.

The acting is absolutely bang on too.
Keanu Reeves really hits his role with perfection. With the movie being such a far out idea, he really encapsulates the lost-puppy persona needed for Neo.
Lawrence Fishburn is marvellous as Morpeus. The leader of the group who take Neo on his journey. He’s the epitome of cool.
Hugo Weaving is fantastic as the otherworldly and emotionless villain Agent Smith. He made it to #33 in my Top 40 Villains.

The one fault with the movie is that it’s extremely serious. There’s little in the way of humour or respite in the depressed feelings of the characters.

All in all it’s a brilliant sci-fi-mystery ride into a different yet also very recognisable world.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


----------

Matrix Reloaded.

This is where things already started to go awry for the Matrix franchise.

The movie revolves around Neo again. This time he’s become an all-powerful super human and has unlocked his mind from ‘reality’.
Agent Smith is up to his old tricks and has learned a few new techniques for defeating Neo from within The Matrix and outside of it too.
The premise is that of the first movie, an ongoing war between man and machine and a twist in the story for the human city called Zion.

The movie is orientated toward action and flashy imagery more than anything else.
There is expansion in the storyline with Neo’s new missions and an introduction to the human city of Zion and new characters are introduced to the story but it feels extremely linear.

The special effects are an improvement to an extent but a lot of it has been turned from practical camera use, into full on CG scenes that show a lot of break up as they’re not rendered brilliantly. Some of it is, but most of it isn’t.

What made The Matrix such a success was the development of things the audience had never seen before. This movie just feels like a typical Hollywood sequel: Flashy and hollow.

The action is exciting though, it’s well choreographed, but it’s just too CG to be anywhere near as exciting as the more practical first movie.
The martial arts scenes with Neo are probably the best part of the whole movie though, a lot of work went into the fights and Reeves really shows his worth as an action star.

The acting again though is bang on the money. The addition of the new characters and new sub-plots broadens the scope of the movie.

All in all a vast and sprawling action-up with a stretched out story that is exciting at times, but it’s just too much like an expensive cartoon.
My rating 69%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png



----------

Matrix Revolutions.

The third of the franchise revolves more around the war outside of The Matrix, rather than Neo and the group’s interactions within The Matrix.

Neo’s new mission is to take on Agent Smith’s new found super powers and make a pact with the machines, as Smith is now becoming a serious threat to them too.
Cue a big showdown both inside and outside The Matrix that lasts most of the movie’s running time.

The problem is that the movie has no real mystery to it anymore.
The plotline is very, very linear: The characters have an idea, they make it happen, then move onto the next idea and so on. After the first half-hour you feel bored with it all and are hoping for the ending to come along.

The CG is extremely heavy again but this time it’s utilised with much more thought. It’s more reality based than being an expensive cartoon, so thumbs up for that.

The action too, though heavily CG is actually very entertaining and much more exciting than the second movie, especially during the fighting in Zion.

The Neo/Smith CGI laden showdown however is a bit of a letdown. The filmmakers went for style rather than substance and it feels very hollow.

The actors are starting to look a little tired of it all too. They do there jobs well, but the charisma and energy they had in the first two movies has somewhat diminished.

All in all, better effects than the first two, a few extra sub-plots and much more exciting in the action scenes, but not really a great end to what started out so promisingly.
My rating is the same as the second movie at 64%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #33: Arachnophobia.

Implausible comedy horror revolving around a Venezuelan super spider that escapes its surroundings and ends up in a small American town and mates with a house-spider and creates a pile of deadly offspring.
The town is then subjected to jumpy terror and painful death and Jeff Daniels and John Goodman have to do what they can to find the spider’s nest and kill the main mating pair.

The movie, for what it’s based on is actually very entertaining.
Some of the jumpy bits are well conceived and would certainly put an Arachnophobe on the edge of their seat. Everyone else just gets the jitters watching the creepy-crawlies hiding under various things and jumping out at people, including toilet seats.

The acting is about as standard for the type of low budget horror movie it is. Jeff Daniels plays it relatively serious and hits the odd piece of subtle comedy brilliantly.
John Goodman in particular is funny. More in a subtle way rather than his usual wacky outlandishness and it’s a shame that he’s not seen on screen more often.

The effects of the film are at times extremely poor. The giant animatronic/puppeted spiders aren’t very convincing and there are a lot of mistakes with the puppetry.
However, the work the filmmakers put in when using real spiders is well choreographed. A lot of the time you wonder how they did it.

There's not much else to say on the film really.

If it weren’t for the mistakes and puppetry, the movie would rate a lot higher, though still, all in all it’s a cosy night in with the girlfriend cuddling your arm.
My rating 68%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Saw Arachnophobia at the movies, went with my friend and her children, they were very scared :eek:

I like Arachnophobia, but then, I like a lot of those disaster/nature against man films. If you do, I'd recommend this beauty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thespiders.png
Kingdom Of The Spiders

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #34: Super 8.

Small change in the above list I posted before. I’ve decided to review Super 8 instead of Gremlins.

Based on the premise of a train crash caught on camera by a bunch of school kids in the late 1970s.
A creature of some kind, being transported on the train, has now been released into a nearby town and is causing the disappearances of people and animals and even more strangely, the disappearance of electronic gadgets, from microwave ovens to air-conditioning units and power-lines.

On the creatures heels are Army and Government types who (unbeknown to the group of kids), are also after whoever filmed the crash as one of the head-honchos has found a film box left behind at the crash site.


What starts off as a promising mystery horror/shocker, sadly turns very, very slowly into a sci-fi thriller and then drops it’s clever build up and turns into full on CG sci-fi and extremely quick successions of explanatory dialogue.

The writing is pretty simplistic and the story is very linear too.
It’s a simple ABC-123-set-of-events and circumstances that grow larger as the film progresses, eventually the simplistic climax of the movie arrives and isn’t exactly as grand as the viewer would hope.


There are the usual Spielberg-esk family-life subplots going on between the characters: Broken homes and divorced parents, other parents that are dead, various kids all fancying the same person, etc, etc, with all the various different characters having to reconcile all of the various differences between them all.

There are some well-conceived jumpy bits and occasional hits of family orientated humour mixed in though, another Spielberg-esk touch.


The effects of the movie reminded me a lot of Cloverfield, keeping the creature in the shadows with only the occasional glimpse, but sadly, unlike Cloverfield, this creature doesn’t give the viewer a thrill once it’s revealed. It’s designed very much like the Cloverfield monster too, just smaller.

Don’t get me wrong, the CGI is well rendered, really well rendered, it’s just a very bog-standard creature for such a well put together build up.


The acting in the film is probably the best part of it all.
The kids used as the main bunch of characters are all non-actors. They play their roles really well too. They’re believable and carry the story and emotions fantastically. There are scenes of genuine upset and emotion that the audience can’t help but feel too. The kids’ acting is brilliant.
The adult cast all carry their various roles well too, but it’s the kids that make the film worth watching.

It’s sad really, being a sci-fi fan, I so wanted to like this film.
However it feels too much of a rip of various ideas from various other films, E.T, Close Encounters, Cloverfield etc. Even the music reminded me of J.J Abrams' Star Trek.

A lot of the homage paid to other films made me think I was watching a bigger budgeted version of Paul, only without the comedy. There's just nothing really new about the film.

All in all it’s entertaining and flashy on the outside, but feels a little too hollow and linear to make the ranks of classic film in ten years time from now. To be honest, I think it’ll be long forgotten well before then.
My rating 33%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #35: The Shawshank Redemption.

Another fantastic movie appearing in my reviews, based on Stephen King novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption.

It revolves around a banker, Andy Dufresne, being incarcerated in Shawshank Prison for murdering his wife and her lover.
He’s subjected to beatings and rape by other inmates and eventually finds friends in some of the other inmates and even a few of the Guards due to his financial knowledge, eventually becoming a well known and respected inmate himself. Eventually he’s caught up in a money-laundering scam with the prison Warden.

Every day, he defends his innocence for the murders, claiming that he loved his wife.
After 30 years of imprisonment, possible evidence appears that he was actually telling the truth all along.

It’s a wonderfully shot and beautifully written movie, if at times very disturbing and brutal.
The story telling is extremely well put together. Some might say it’s a basic sequence of events but the little twists and turns and the occasional surprise in the plot make the movie a joy to watch.

The character writing is also absolutely well executed. They’re funny, rude, stupid at times, depressing, violent and very, very real.
You really care about the main group of characters and the odd hit of tragedy really hits the viewer hard.

At times the movie can be hard to watch because of the nature of nature and the human psyche that the movie delves into throughout the running time. Not hard in a boring way, hard in an emotional way, the movie encapsulates human nature better than any movie of its kind.

The acting is absolutely bang on the money from all parties, Tim Robbins excels in his best role I’ve ever seen him play as Dufresne. As the movie progresses his character changes incredibly, he even physically ages as the movie progresses.
Morgan Freeman as Ellis Boyde Redding, Dufresne’s best friend and cohort in the prison is brilliantly wise and yet approachable and friendly. The friendship between him and Dufresne is almost a kinship and the acting really shows their connection.
Clancy Brown is again the ‘hard case’ Guard who’s not afraid to dish out the occasional beating, typecast maybe but Brown is actually at his best. The brilliant writing of the characters gives him a human side, which makes you like his character to an extent.

All in all, it’s a very low key movie and feels low budget in the way it looks but don’t let that put anyone off, Shawshank is a movie that should be, no, must be viewed by anyone who enjoys movies. It has absolutely everything and certainly surprised me when I saw it for the first time.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Agree almost totally with your last two reviews. While I'd rate Super 8 slightly higher I did find it incredibly disappointing. And Shawshank is just wonderful!


Is that film as gloriously dreadful/awesome as it looks? :D

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #36: The Abyss.

Another change in movie, I was going to write up a review for Walking Tall, but decided that The Abyss was a better choice.

A team of underwater oil-drillers using a sophisticated underwater rig is called in by the Navy to salvage nuclear warheads from a sunken submarine.
Hesitant at first, the team decide to help with the recovery and find themselves plunged (excuse the pun) into a world of wonder, terror and amazement when they’re cut off from their company’s ship and the rest of the Navy fleet during a sudden storm.
With two of the crew having seen strange lights outside in the ocean depths and the Navy Seals who have come aboard starting to show signs of pressure induced psychosis, life for the drill team is going to get a whole lot more interesting than just the normal day-to-day drilling for oil.

James Cameron’s underwater epic is an absolutely magnificent piece of filmmaking.
It utilises every trick in the book, from shocks, violence and claustrophobia to wonder, amazement, mystery and even comedy.
It’s exceptionally well written.
The underwater and flooding scenes are brilliantly choreographed too, I couldn't help but gasp for air while watching.

The twists and turn in the story telling (and there are several) keep the audience on the edge of their seats as you never know where the story is going to go next.
A lot of the plot devices and ideas seen in the film are very original too.
The special effects in the movie are, even today, fascinating. The water tentacle especially, is one of the highlights.

ILM paved the way for films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park and pretty much every other CG movie since with the technology created for the movie.

Maybe one thing that lets the movie down is that there is some puppetry used at the end of the film that is quite obvious, but it does work with the film’s several subject matters.

The acting is also brilliant.
The entire cast are extremely comfortable around each other, giving the effect needed of people who have spent a long time with each other in their work and the uncomfortable feelings they get when the Navy arrive on their rig is felt by the viewer.
Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are wonderfully comic as the feuding soon-to-be-divorced husband and wife Heads of the drill team.
Michael Biehn as Lt. Coffee is an absolute joy as the Navy team leader whose character changes rapidly over the film. Biehn made to the top 10 in my top 40 villains for his role in the film.

All in all a near perfect thrill ride of CG wonder and claustrophobic fear.


My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Ahh.... the rat turned into a prince ( refering to your avatar ):D
Which Walking Tall were you going to do, the Joe Don Baker one or The Rock re-make?

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

It was going to be The Rock (aka Dwayne).
Decided not to. Might do it later at some point. Anyways, here's two more for the collection.

Review #37: Troll Hunter.

A third change from the above list. I saw Troll Hunter when it was first released but saw it again the other day and had to let everyone know what I thought.
I’ve watched the movie in both formats i.e.; In Norwegian with English subtitles and also in redubbed English.

Another movie based on ‘found footage’ reveals three 20 somethings making a documentary about a hunter who is illegally shooting bears in Norway find themselves thrown into a world of Norwegian mythology when they decide to follow the hunter in question.
It turns out that this hunter is actually a troll hunter working for a secret government system and he takes the three filmmakers on a trip of terror and discovery in the wilderness of northern Europe.

The films premise is sound, basing it in real life situations is a mark of originality by the filmmakers but the movie itself mainly falls flat after that.
The only other redeeming features of the film are the CG trolls. Though the movie is relatively low budget, the CGI is exceptionally well rendered and very original. They utilise existing mythology too with the look of the creatures which adds authenticity as well.

The acting in the film is sadly, lacklustre at best. It’s very wooden and obviously scripted. There’s no naturalness with the dialogue either.

The physical reactions of the cast are also very scripted which is another sad part of the film, it destroys the aura of reality that the film is trying desperately to build.

There are also sections of the plot that are based on what the filmmakers had to work with due to low budget.
A side effect of this is that certain plot elements are unintentionally laugh-out-loud funny, anyone who has already seen the movie will know what I’m talking about when I say "Electrical Pylons".

All in all a well rendered CG film when the CGI is actually used. Sadly, it’s unintentionally funny, badly acted and certainly not worth the £16 that I paid for it on DVD.

My rating 11%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png



Review #38: John Carpenter’s The Fog.

As a small American fishing town prepares to celebrate the 100th anniversary of it’s completion, strange and disturbing things start occurring just after midnight on the anniversary when a strange glowing fog rolls in from the ocean.
Car alarms start going off, animals become disturbed, gold coins transform into pieces of wood and a fishing boat is found adrift at sea with all the crewmembers either dead or missing.
During the incidents’ occurrences, a Priest finds a diary that was written by his Grandfather at the time of the town’s completion. It contains disturbing and upsetting stories of murder and theft that lead to the town’s beginnings 100 years before.

The movie is an absolute entertainer. Carpenter’s writing is extremely well put together.
His take on a simple ghost story is incredibly original.

The effects are very rudimentary, it’s mainly fog and lights, but work absolutely brilliantly. Rob Bottin’s creations are simple, gory, dark and at times are quite disturbing when seen. They’re kept to the shadows and are hidden behind fog most of the time too, which gives the scary moments more impact.

The acting too is top notch. There’s no actual lead role as such, it’s more along the lines of various town’s folk in their own survival story.
An incredibly sexy Adrienne Barbeau, Scream-Queen Jamie Lee-Curtis, John Houseman and Janet Leigh are all on top form as the runners, screamers and hiders.
The thing that let’s the movie down? Not a lot really, as usual with Carpenter he makes his own soundtrack for the movie and it’s far from being his best.

All in all a cracking little horror that keeps things small-scale and is very atmospheric.


My rating 74%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #39: Dog Soldiers.

A small group of British Squaddies on a training programme in a forest in the middle of Scotland’s nowhere, is thrown into a night of horror survival when they find themselves preyed upon, by what they perceive as a pack of giant wolves.
They happen upon the gruesome remains of another group of soldiers and immediately take ammo and weapons and head for a way out of the forest.
Eventually they find themselves trapped in a farmhouse and have to spend the night defending their stronghold against an inhuman and seemingly invincible enemy.

The low budget horror movie makes a welcome return to the screen.
Dog Soldiers starts out as a normal, funny buddy movie and rapidly nosedives into a genuinely funny, gory and shocking horror movie with gun-action thrown in for good measure.

The writing is pretty simple, it’s the bog-standard ‘trapped in house, monster trying to get in’ thriller in a similar vein to Romero’s Zombie movies. It’s kept small scale and utilises suspense perfectly.
But the addition of the prey being a bunch of Squaddies gives the movie a much broader range with the action and especially, the comedic elements.

The characterisation of the soldiers is absolutely spot on, especially with the attitudes and dialogue, they’re funny, pally and also know how to kick @rse and take orders when needed.

The main sense of realism incorporated into the movie is with the cast that were picked for the various roles, they’ve all got different accents and are in their late teens and early 20s, with only the Sergeant and Corporal being older than the rest.

The cast doesn’t disappoint either.
They’re funny, engaging, serious and tough and are believable as British Soldiers. They all hit their lines with professionalism and never miss a beat during action scenes.
Jon Pertwee as the Sarge is particularly good, he’s extremely believable and well cast in the role.
As too is Kevin McKidd who takes charge when the Sarge is injured.
Liam Cunningham adds a touch of British Villainy to the mix and has an air of campness about him too.

The effects of the movie are, for a low budget film, extremely well made. The creatures are kept to the shadows until the end and when revealed, certainly don’t disappoint. They’re men-in-suits, but with a difference and there’s no CGI contained in the movie either, which gives the whole thing a grounded feel.

The only thing that lets the movie down is the running time, it’s just not long enough.
100 minutes? I wanted at least another hour.
Still, that doesn’t remove the fact that it’s an extremely good piece of writing, acting and shooting.

All in all it’s a thrill-ride of comedy, horror and realism, in a set of unreal but still, oddly believable circumstances.


My rating is an easily given 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Very nice review. Shawshank Redemption is probably the best prison movie ever made.
Quite a while back (1969) there was a gritty prison movie you might find interesting called Riot. Jim Brown and Gene Hackman head the cast. Other prison theme movies I liked:

Bruebaker ( Robert Redford )
Dead Man Walking ( Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon)
The Green Mile ( Tom Hanks )
An Innocent Man ( Tom Selleck )
Monster Ball ( Billy Bob Thorton, Halley Berry, Heath Ledger)
Penitentiary I,II,III ( Leon Isaac Kennedy )
Runaway Train ( John Voight, Eric Roberts )
Undisputed I (Ving Rhames, Wesley Snipes), II ( Ben Cross ), III ( ScottAdkins)

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Thanks for the list. Green Mile was good, might take a look at An Innocent Man though, I like Selleck.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #40: The Shining.

Based on Stephen King’s novel.

Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) takes a job at the Overlook Hotel when everyone has left during the winter closing season. His job involves taking care of the grounds and the inner workings of the hotel’s systems, including central heating, maintaining the electrics and basically keeping the hotel in one piece while nobody is there.

Stories about the last caretaker of the hotel murdering his family and then killing himself are ignored by Jack and he takes the job without much hesitation, bringing with him is his wife, Wendy, and their young son, Danny, to the hotel to stay with him over the winter months.
After only a short time the family are snowed in and Jack starts having bad dreams and behaves erratically, scaring Wendy and Danny.

When Danny too starts having nightmares and says there are strange people in the hotel with them, Wendy realises there’s something very wrong with Jack, Danny and the Overlook Hotel and has to fight for her and her son’s life to get away.

It’s another well-made horror movie from me, The Shining is one of the all time greats that shows exactly how to make a horror work.
The movie is exceptionally well put together in terms of writing and scene placement. As too are the sets used for the film, they’re claustrophobic at times with the long, thin, winding, identical corridors and extremely atmospheric and spooky when the movie extends to other parts of the hotel, including the outside maze in the hotel gardens.

The scenes of horror and violence in the film are also extremely well played by all the actors.

The movie also contains a lot of unanswered questions and leaves the viewer in a mild state of confusion at the end, which makes the movie all the more haunting.

There aren’t any special effects per say in the film but occasionally there are spooky flashbacks containing disturbing scenes, which are handled extremely well.

As for the acting, Nicholson is an absolute joy as the twisted Jack Torrance. He made it to #3 in my Top 40 Villains list. He’s edgy, twitchy and Nicholson even manages to get some (albeit satanic) humour out of the character.
Shelley Duvall as Wendy is more of a scream queen in the film. Hats off to Shelley though, she cries pretty much throughout the entire film and handles the quieter scenes with a motherly care, she is at times a little wooden though, which is probably the only bad thing in the film.
Danny Lloyd as the son, Danny, is another marvel. At only 7 years old he really hits the role with the professionalism of much older actors.

All in all a marvel of horror, gore and spooky thrills. An exceptional piece of work from Stanley Kubrick.


My rating 96%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I'm with you(the acting didn't bother me though), really don't get the praise Troll Hunter has been getting. My blu-ray was only £9... I feel your pain. ;)

I like your review style-- to the point and reasonable. And I find myself agreeing with much of your take on things, so you must be right! :D:D

Cheers guys. Glad I'm doing a good job and you're enjoying my writing.

Coming up for reviews 41-50 are going to be mainly franchises and sequels and only three completely original movies (be prepared though, some of these are going to be torn apart).

41: Indiana Jones Foursome.
42: Rodriguez Predators.
43: Raimi's Spiderman Trilogy.
44: Rocky 1-6.
45: The Lost Boys.
46: Evolution.
47: Alien Franchise (including my review for Alien 3 from an earlier review).
48: The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park 3 (plus a runover from my earlier Jurassic Park review).
49: Gremlins 1 & 2.
50: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (original).

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #41: Indiana Jones Foursome.

Decided to kick off the 40s with all 4 Indiana Jones movies, in the order they were made, in one big review. Hope you enjoy.

Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

A schoolteacher and archaeologist, Dr Henry Walton ‘Indiana’ Jones, is called into action to locate and/or discover what is believed to be the Ark of the Covenant.
Also on the trail of the Ark however, are the Nazis and Indiana Jones has to stop them before they can use it’s power to plunge the world into darkness.
‘Tagging’ along is Indy’s ex-girlfriend and old cohort, Marian Ravenwood. What awaits the duo is something greater than either can imagine and powerful enough to look into their very souls.

The first and original movie is an all time great, it mixes elements of all genres: Western, adventure, mystery, mythology, comedy, tragedy, and to an extent even a touch of sci-fi mixed in with mystical magic.

It’s an absolute masterpiece in how to write and carry out a story. The scene placement and look of the film is absolutely bang on with the old-school feel of grand adventure and discovery. Lucas and Spielberg have even been noted as saying they wanted to encapsulate the old adventure stories seen on TV in the 1930s and they really have managed it.

The effects of the movie are another good point. Most of the film is practical, explosions, gunfights etc and is extremely well choreographed. It’s only near the end that the computers and other special effects are brought into play and even by today’s standard, they hold up extremely well.

The action too is very well put together. It’s very heroic and engaging and Indy’s character is different to most as he has a human side and is vulnerable during fights. It’s not the run-of-the-mill-relentless-march-of-victory that’s seen in most film s of its type.

The acting from all parties is also bang on the money.
Harrison Ford was born to play Indy. Not only does he look right for the role, he’s smooth with the women, tough in a fight, rugged around the edges, yet is at times extremely approachable and friendly. He’s also as I said, vulnerable, which gives him a real side.
Karen Allen as Marian is another wonderful touch. She’s also tough and yet extremely vulnerable when she’s in jeopardy. Allen plays the role as almost a tomboy with a heart.

Mixing to all that, John Williams’ awesome soundtrack, it’s a sure-fire classic.
It’s extremely difficult to find a fault with the movie. It’s definitely a one of a kind.

All in all a great adventure/mystery/discovery and full of laughs and tragedy too. One for the history books.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Temple Of Doom.

Indy and his little protégé, Shorty Round and a beautiful singer called Willie Scott, find themselves trapped in India after an old acquaintance tries to kill Indy. While there they come across a village that has a sacred stone taken from the village temple and that their children have also been stolen.
The village Elders believe that Indy has been sent from the Gods to help them.
Reluctantly Indy takes up the challenge and still being young he thinks about the money that would be involved in finding the precious rock.
Unbeknown to Indy and his two followers, what awaits them is a Temple of devil worship and torture, lead by a man who has seemingly superhuman powers and strength.

The second movie (though based before the first) is a Marmite question for Indy fans. You either like it or hate it.
Personally, I loved it just as much as the first, though unlike the first movie, this one does have faults.

It’s not much of a story compared to Raiders, it feels quite simplistic with the writing. There is a story there and some elements of mystery too, it’s just a simple ABC-123 set of events.

The characters in the movie have been written with a touch more comedy too rather than finding real life comedy in their predicaments.

The movie also, is a lot darker than its predecessor with the subject matter. I didn’t mind too much, it makes it stand out from the others.

The action and effects of the movie are again, very well choreographed and put together. It’s exciting and keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat.
The acting, once again, is wonderfully played.

This time round there a touch of comic relief with Indy’s little helper Shorty Round. Key Huy Quan is brilliantly streetwise and also naïve at times in the sequence of strange events. He’s also brave and tough when called for.
Kate Capshaw as the spoilt brat Willie Scott, is another touch of comedy relief. She tends to become funnier in times of danger and when she’s in situations involving the outdoors, dirt and broken nails. Capshaw plays the role perfectly.

All in all, apart from the simple story, it’s another rollercoaster (ahem) of adventure and discovery.
My rating 99%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Last Crusade.

Set after the first movie, Indy is called into action again as the Nazis are on the hunt for more Christian antiquities. This time their after the Holy Grail, aka; The Cup Of Christ, and Indy has discovered that his father, Professor Henry Jones, a man who is the world’s leading expert on the Grail, has gone missing while trying to stop the Nazis.
Indy takes along Marcus Brody, a fellow schoolteacher and friend of his father and Dr Elsa Schneider, an Austrian Art Professor who had worked alongside Indy’s father when he went missing.
With a race against time for his father’s life and a race for the Grail, Indy will once again be thrown into a world of discovery and mythology in a bid to save mankind.

The third of the series is a fantastic return to the Indy that made the first so successful. It’s fantastically written and has many subtle levels of mystery and mythology. The mystery of the Grail is discovered throughout the story through Indy’s father’s teachings and is extremely well revealed over the running time.

The little twists and turns throughout the film are also well conceived.

The action scenes are again, choreographed with perfection. They’re exciting and explosive and again, are kept to being practical throughout the movie rather than outlandish effects.

The acting is by far the best of all three movies. Sean Connery as Professor Jones is an absolute mark of genius from the filmmakers. Connery, (even though he was James Bond) and Denholm Elliot as Marcus Brody, seem so out of their element as the stay-in-the-classroom Professors it actually gives them a loveability and a sense of comedic timing. The acting is bang on in their roles too.
John Rhys-Davis as Sallah returns from the first film as Indy’s cohort and friend and is gladly expanded as a character rather than a bit-part from the first film.
Alison Doody as Indy’s new love interest, Dr Schneider, is brilliantly sexy and has an untrustworthy edge about her.

All in all it’s a brilliant return to the Indy everyone loves and has more to it than the first movie too.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.

An ageing Dr Jones finds himself kidnapped by the Russian Military in 1957, in a bid to find an artefact that contains a great power. They wish to harness this power and rule the earth from beyond the constraints of modern technology.
Tagging along is a young man calling himself Mutt Williams, who claims that his mother and a mutual friend call Harold ‘Ox’ Oxley have also, been kidnapped by the Russians.
It’s up to Indy and Mutt to save their mutual friend and Mutt’s mother and stop the Russians from gaining a power greater than anything known in this world.

Sadly, it’s very hard to find anything good in this film.

The writing is extremely substandard and linear. There’s very little in the way of exciting action or any kind of mystery or mythology.
It feels extremely rushed, cashed in and very, very cheap.
A little twist in the Indy Legacy is in there, but it feels more of a gimmick rather than anything else.

A lot of the ideas used in the film are unused ideas from other Lucas and Spielberg collaberations, including the now infamous Nuking The Fridge scene.

The subject matter too is by far the worst part of it all. The filmmakers seem to have forgotten what Indy was all about. The 1930s TV series adventure. Ok the movie is now set in 1957, but the aura of Indy has been stamped on and left for dead.

The actors too are simply going through the motions as their characters. Ford as Indy seems kind of lost with it all, wondering why the hell he’s doing this.
A returning Karen Allen could have been a nice touch, but she too is extremely wooden.
Shia LeBeouf is a huge mistake. He delivers his lines like a robot and certainly doesn’t have the physique for the role he’s been cast into. He also tends to just flare his nostrils and look on with wide eyes when something remotely interesting happens.
By far the best part of the film is Cate Blanchett as the villainess Soviet Agent Irina Spalko. She revels in her role and never misses a beat and she’s certainly got an air of danger about her though she's still not perfect and seems also to be wondering why she's there.

As for the effects, Spielberg seems to have gone for full on CGI rather than practical effects and it’s not good CGI either. I’m afraid swinging through the jungle with CGI monkeys was completely lost on me.
CGI is used even when there’s no action on screen either, the entire movie feels hollow because of it.

All in all it’s a good job this wasn’t the first Indy movie. If it had been, it would have killed the franchise 30 years ago.
My rating 10%, mainly for Blanchett’s performance
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Great review of the Indiana Jones films, and I couldn't agree more with you about The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, here's hoping the next one will be better.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #42: Predators.

4 soldiers, all from different armies, a Yakuza hitman, a Colombian gangster, a criminal and a doctor, all strangers, find themselves waking up in mid-airdrop and land in a jungle.
Quickly they learn that an unseen force is hunting them and have to team up with one another and find a way out of their predicament and out of the jungle before they’re killed off one by one.

It’s a happy return to a more serious Predator movie. AvP had almost killed off the franchise with the universe crossover that it failed to construct.

Rodriguez has taken all the things that were great with the Predator franchise and utilised it in the best way that he could have and has added new takes and expansion to the mix as well.

The writing is simplistic, but there are a few touches of originality in the storyline and the filmmakers have gladly kept to the original Legends as much as possible. They’ve also expanded only just enough to make it watchable for those who have never seen the original movies and make it an acceptable movie for the already existing Preds fans.

The action too is very Predator-esk. It’s loud, fast and exciting to watch and often appears out of nowhere.

The effects of the film are another welcome return. The CGI is utilised brilliantly and the ‘dogs’ seen in the film are certainly a threat and look the part too.

The acting is pretty standard for the type of movie. I was dubious about Adrien Brody in the lead role but he really encapsulates the no nonsense soldier role brilliantly.
A sexy Alice Braga with a gun, is also good to watch. Her @ss is awesome.
Walton Goggins is probably the best of the lot as the convict. He’s rather strange and plays the role with a memorable, ‘bull-sh*tter’ style.

The main fault with the movie is that the snot and gore has, to an extent, been toned down in place of more stylish violence.
There are scenes of blood and guts, just not as graphic as the original movie and certainly less than Predator 2, though I guess that’s Rodriguez’ way of making a movie.
The thing is though, it works and makes the movie memorable.

Many say that Predators is a re-run of the first movie and I’d agree, it feels very samey, almost being the Superman Returns of the Predator franchise, but Rodriguez’ and director Nimrod’s collaboration really does work very well.

All in all it’s a surprisingly good, if less gory re-run of Predator and expands the legend in all the right places and at just the right amount.


My rating is a well deserved 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Review #43: Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy.

Spider-Man.

Peter Parker, a nerdy, bullied schoolboy is bitten on the hand by a genetically enhanced super spider while on a school outing at a science lab. After a night of illness, he awakens the next morning to find he has strange new powers that allow him to jump far and crawl up walls and a strange marks on his wrists that allow him to squirt a web-like substance.
After a car-jacking incident takes the life of a family member, he vows to use his new powers to make sure the tragedy that he has suffered, never happens to anyone else again.
Designing himself a suit, he becomes the all-powerful Spider-Man.
Unknown to him, what will become his most well known enemy, the Green Goblin, has also been born in a lab experiment gone wrong. Goblin’s goal is to wipe out all threats to his company Oscorp, and becomes a danger to the city in the process.

Raimi’s movie is an absolute joy. Though grand in feel, it’s relatively low-key and short-but-sweet with a lot of the action but utilises the look and feel of a comic book brilliantly.

It’s written perfectly too, the scene placement and storyline is wonderfully put together. The audience are given time to actually care about the characters too.
The love story between Peter and Mary-Jane Watson is worked on too, which is a nice sub story to care about.

The special effects are the absolute highlight of the film. The movie is very heavy on CGI. There are one or two glitches here and there but seeing Spidey swing through the streets of New York is a thrill-ride. It’s fast, exhilarating and colourful and is extremely well rendered.
The action scenes, though short at times, are lots of fun.

Toby Maguire as Parker/Spidey is a perfect choice for the role. Maguire took the role seriously enough to physically train as hard as he did and has the perfect physique for the Web-Slinger and acts the role overall, brilliantly. He has the cheeky, self-assured Spidey down to a T.
Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin is a joy to watch. He goes from normal guy to extremely evil, to comic book campy with absolute ease.
James Franco as Harry Osborn, Norman’s son and Peter’s best pal is good, but the role, apart from the half attempt at a love triangle, is barely expanded to more than a sub character.
J.K Simmons as Daily Bugle editor J Jonah Jameson is by far the most memorable of the characters. He absolutely smashes the role, he feels just like he’s stepped out of the comic. For me, he steals the movie when on screen.

Sadly though, the movie feels a little bare and empty for a Spider-Man film. It could do with more smash-em-up action in the mix.

All in all it’s a fun ride, lots of comic book fun and very colourful.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Spider-Man 2.

Peter Parker has settled into his dual role as Peter/Spidey. The problem is that he’s settled too much. His college work and job are suffering and he’s running the risk of getting fired and flunking his studies.
Adding to that, his social life has tumbled and Mary-Jane is marrying another man.
With all the stress in his life, his powers have started to fail him.
A brilliant scientist, Dr Octavius meanwhile, has pioneered a new powerful form of energy through his research at Oscorp (now owned by James Franco’s character, Harry). Through a freak accident, Octavius’ Artificial Intelligent mechanical arms, (used for physically handling the energy), are welded to his spine and the A.I begins to control him. Spurned on by his love of his work, Octavius becomes a reckless danger to everyone in the city, with only one goal, personal gain. Harry, who blames Spider-Man for his father’s death, decides to use Octavius’ new power to kill Spidey in return for funding Octavius’ energy research. Unknown to Harry though, is that Spidey is his best pal, Peter.

Raimi’s sequel is a much grander thrill ride of effects and story writing. The legend of Spider-Man and his trials and tribulations is expanded massively throughout the movie. The story between him and Mary-Jane is worked on extensively too and also with Spidey’s relation to Harry.

It’s brilliantly put together on the story telling front.

The effects of the movie are also expanded and improved massively. The CGI action is bigger, louder and feels more like the comic book has jumped from the page.
The action itself is much grander in scale too rather than in short bursts.
The acting again is bang on the money. Maguire is given much more range with the tormented Peter/Spider-Man.

Kirsten Dunst and James Franco also are given more screen time and broader storylines.
Alfred Molina is another example of great acting, he really shines in his role as Octavius/Doc Ock. You can tell he’s enjoying every moment.
J.K Simmons steals the show again though when he’s on screen.

All in all a vast improvement on an already great start from Raimi, it’s grand and exciting.


My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Spider-Man 3.

Peter and Mary-Jane are now together in a rocky relationship. Peter’s dual life has taken it’s toll on their love-life and Mary-Jane has started to wonder if it’s all a mistake.
Harry, now knowing who and what Peter is, has undertaken the same research that nearly killed his father, Norman. He now has the mindset and powers to take out Spidey once and for all. However, Harry, now the new Green Goblin, is injured badly when he takes on Spidey and loses his memory.
Flint Marko, a runaway criminal (who is trapped in a particle accelerator and transformed at a molecular level into the Sandman), tangles with Spidey alongside Venom, an all-powerful, malevolent alien life-form that Spidey has been using for extra powers, in place of his normal Spider-Man suit.
Venom eventually finds its way to another host called Eddie Brock Jr, after Spidey realises it’s making him do bad things. Eddie has a vendetta against Peter for showing him up as a fraud at the Daily Bugle and uses his new found powers in Venom to take Spidey and Peter out.
Adding to the mix is some confusion about Uncle Ben’s death from the first movie, throwing into doubt Peter’s actions.

The story should work, it’s expanded, not greatly but it is expanded and the characters are all thrown into personal and interpersonal battles and the addition of the new villains should make for a broad plot.

Sadly though, it feels more like a rushed cash in to the first two gems.
The new love circle between Peter, Mary-Jane, Harry, Gwen Stacy and Eddie is another expansion, but again, it falls flat. You just don’t care if they work it all out or not. To be honest, neither do the actors.

The CGI in this film isn’t brilliantly improved. Some of it is very cartoony. By far the best thing in the CGI stakes is Sandman but the budget for the effects seems to have been spent solely on him, with the rest having to make do.

The action though I will say, is fast and exciting. Some of it is a little gimmicky but the end fight between Spider-Man, Green Goblin, Sandman and Venom is particularly good.

The one other good thing about the movie as a whole, is that it delves into a darker feel than the first two, but it’s just not enough when everything else is missing the mark.

The acting, sadly, has suffered also.
Maguire is his usual self in the role, but the addition of a bad attitude when he dons the black suit just isn’t Maguire’s forte.
Dunst is starting to look fed up with it all.
Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy is a breath of fresh air. She's absolutely beautiful and plays the role with a tongue in cheek flirtiness.
Topher Grace and Thomas Hayden Church as Venom and Sandman respectively, are good in their roles. Grace in particular is slimy and evil.
Franco is a highlight as Goblin Jr. You can tell he’s enjoying his part as a real bad guy and hits his mark really well after his character’s memory loss.

All in all a sad ending to a terrific build up. Though it’s watchable, it most definitely should have been better.
My rating 35%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Review #44: Rocky 1-6.

Rocky.

Rocky Balboa, a down on his luck amateur boxer and debt collector for mobsters is given a shot at the big-time when he’s approached by the managers of the current World Heavy Weight Champion, Apollo Creed, in a bout for the title.
Creed and his managers see it as a publicity opportunity, never for a second believing that an unfit amateur slugger can stand up to a chiselled athlete like Creed.
Rocky on the other hand, takes it more seriously than they imagined and, with the woman of his dreams now on his arm, he trains harder than he’s ever trained before, for the fight of his life.

Stallone’s writing is pretty simlistic, but it works tremendously. His underdog story is an absolute masterpiece in simplicity. Keeping in mind he wrote the movie’s plot in a few minutes, it’s stood the test of time brilliantly.

The character development is very subtly written and played out over the running time of the film. Adrienne’s development and Rocky’s maturity growing over the film together is brilliantly conceived with the love story between Rocky and Adrienne, with Adrienne coming out of her shell through Rocky’s outgoing nature and eventually becoming a rock for him in return when he doubts his fighting ability.

The audience is also given time to really care for the characters too, it’s not just a punch ‘em up boxing movie.

The ending fight scenes aren’t perfectly put together but they work with the tone of the overall film.

The acting too is absolutely fantastic.
Stallone as Rocky is great. By far Sly’s best performance in any movie. His natural slurred speech and almost simpleton mannerisms are perfect for a punch drunk never-has-been. Though being a fighter, his sweet nature and humanity really makes you care about him too.
Talia Shire as Adrienne is another fantastic role played to perfection. She physically transforms over the movie as the character comes out of her shell.
Carl Weathers encapsulates Apollo Creed brilliantly too. A mediocre actor at best, this is another top performance. He’s loud, proud, brash and confident and fits Creed’s persona perfectly.

Stealing the show though, is the late and very great Meredith Burgess as Rocky’s manager and Trainer, Mickey. Burgess as always never misses a beat and though he’s a tough, rough ex-fighter, he has a human, fatherly side to him that really gives Rocky what he needs.

All in all it’s a brilliant, well acted and original sports-drama and has heartfelt action at the end.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Rocky 2.

Rocky and Adrienne have now gotten married and are using the money and fame Rocky made to pay for better accommodation and a better life.
Adrienne has also fallen pregnant and a lack of money is starting to weigh on Rocky’s mind. Maybe one more fight can sort out their financial problems.
Creed has also decided that he wants a rematch with Rocky. Creed believes that their first encounter, with Rocky going the distance, was basically luck on Rocky’s behalf.
Adding to his problems is that his right eye has been damaged, making him almost blind on one side. Mickey has told him that if he fights Creed again, he’ll be going it alone as he doesn’t want to be responsible for sending Rocky blind. Adrienne too, is weary of Rocky fighting again.
With all this troubling Rocky, Creed makes a public embarrassment of him and after a family upset, Adrienne makes a turn around and eventually gives her praise for him to take on the Champ again.
With an angry Mickey by his side, Rocky takes up the challenge.

Some say the movie is a re-run of the first but Stallone’s writing has allowed for expansion for the characters.
Their attitudes are the same from the first film, Rocky is tough but human and Adrienne is still breaking through her shell in some areas, but their storylines are pushed into new and occasionally upsetting directions.
There’s definitely more of a drama sense with the film.

One thing that pulls on the viewer though is that it’s very downbeat, there’s too much bad stuff going on in Rocky’s life.

The fight scenes are happily an improvement in the movie.

The acting is also improved from all parties. They seem comfortable in their roles and carry the characters extremely well.
Burt Young as Paulie, Rocky’s brother-in-law, is expanded within the story too. He plays the part of the drunken waster brilliantly.

All in all it’s certainly on a par with the first movie, improved in a few ways too but lacks the originality of the first.
My rating 93%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Rocky 3.

Rocky has now become a megastar in the boxing world. He’s been top of the Heavyweight Division for a while and has decided that he would like to retire on a high note. Much to Adrienne’s delight as she gets worried every time he fights.
A young boxer called Clubber Lang has other ideas. He wants Rocky’s title and challenges him to a fight, insulting Adrienne at a press conference too, causing confusion and anger for Rocky.
Adrienne is less than happy with the idea though. Though Rocky has become a celebrity in his home neighbourhood, she feels as though Rocky hasn’t got anything left to prove, she also tells him that there’s no way that he can beat Lang as he’s too strong.
Sadly for Rocky, a tragedy occurs at ringside when he fights Lang, which causes Rocky to lose the fight and his title to a far superior and incredibly dangerous fighter.
Seeing an opportunity, Creed reappears and offers training to Rocky. A dubious and broken Rocky, takes up the offer and with Adrienne lending her support too, he trains harder than he’s ever done before, for an even harder fight of his life.

This third instalment is a chalk and cheese film for fans. The writing is about as good as it could have been but it feels as though the filmmakers are clutching at straws to keep the legend alive.

There are a few new original ideas going on with Rocky losing and having to make a comeback and a couple of little twists with who Rocky can and can’t trust anymore but that’s about it.

The fight scenes and training montages are well choreographed though. They’re far better than the first two movies.

The acting too is about as good as it could be, the lead roles in Stallone, Shire and Weathers are the same, but Mr T as Clubber Lang, sadly, is extremely wooden.
I’m a fan of Mr T but in Rock 3, he really does stink.

All in all it’s a more stylish take than the first two, with invincible enemies and new training regimes and has a few twist here and there and though it’s enjoyable, it’s a hollow shell compared to the originals, though personally, I enjoyed it.
My rating 75%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

　
Rocky 4.

A new upcoming Russian super-athlete called Ivan Drago, has surfaced in America and his managers have been pressing for him to fight America’s best. Apollo Creed decides to come out of retirement with Rocky as his manager and takes on the Russian man-mountain with horrific consequences.
Spurned on by guilt over Apollo’s death, Rocky heads for Russia with Apollo’s old manager and Paulie and Adrienne by his side to take on Drago in a revenge match and to show the Russian super-fighter how it’s done, his way.

That’s about it really for the story, it’s incredibly simplistic like the first film, but contains much less in the way of drama or character development.

The filmmakers also decided to go for full on 1980s gimmicks too, talking robots, Russian paranoia, another indestructible enemy, enemies can love one another too etc.

What makes the movie stand out though is the ending fight between Rocky and Drago. It’s brilliantly choreographed and edited (if extremely cheesy at the end) and really gets the viewer on the edge of their seat.

The acting again is the same as usual, Dolph Lundgren, who made it to #34 in my top 40 villains is fantastically athletic and really looks the part. His acting isn’t the best but he’s kept quiet most of the time. The fact that Stallone and Weathers both were nearly killed by Lundgren during fight scenes, really speaks for his part in the film.

All in all a more bash ‘em up action orientated boxing movie but is extremely cheesy at times, though it stands out amongst the others.
My rating 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png


Rocky 5.

After Rocky’s bout with Drago, he discovers that he’s been hit with the thing all boxers fear, brain damage.
To make things worse, Paulie has squandered the family’s fortune and they find themselves back in their old crummy neighbourhood again.
Having to forcibly retire from his beloved sport, he takes on Mickey’s old gym and finds himself a protege in a young, street urchin fighter called Tommy Gunn.
In the process, Rocky’s relationship to his young son is put in jeopardy as he spends more and more time training Gunn.
With a new found fame, Gunn turns his back on Rocky’s teachings and management, in favour of a hollow lifestyle full of flash cars and lots of money. Eventually Gunn hits the big time and earns his Heavyweight title but is slammed by the newspapers for what he did to Rocky.
In a fit of rage, Gunn attacks Paulie in a bar while the TV cameras are rolling, forcing Rocky into one more punch up, this time against his ex-student.

Again, it’s a simplistic story, but it works with the little twist that’s added between Rocky and his son. The drama and heartache Rocky feels with the relationship between him and Tommy Gunn is worked on well too.

Apart from that that’s all there really is to say.

The acting seems to have dropped in calibre as well. Stallone and Shire do there best to keep up appearances but they look bored with it all.
Stallone’s real life son, Sage Stallone as Robert (Rocky Jr) was a nice touch and he carries his role really quite well for a young actor.

Sadly, the new villain in Tommy Morrison playing Tommy Gunn wasn’t much of a great choice. He can box really well, Morrison is a real boxer, but he certainly can’t act.

All in all, it’s a sad, low key ending to something that was already starting to falter. The story could and should have been much, much better played out.
My rating is a mid 37%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png


Rocky Balboa.

Rocky, now a retired boxer in his late 50s and widower after Adrienne’s death, is running a small Italian Restaurant in Philadelphia. His relationship with his son is failing too, they hardly speak and Robert feels his father’s fame is too much of a shadow.
A computer-simulated match between Rocky in his prime, and the current Heavyweight Champion, Mason Dixon, is shown on TV, and Rocky wins the simulated fight.
A slightly disturbed and curious Rocky decides to take a battery of tests to see if he can still fight professionally.
On hearing that Rocky has passed the tests, Dixon’s manager approaches Rocky with the offer of making the computer fight a reality and lots of money to go with it.
Initially, a reluctant Rocky is spurned on a new by found Little Marie (seen as a child in Rocky 1) and eventually his son too.
He takes up the reigns in the training room with Apollo’s old manager again and trains himself up to take on another life time challenge and get rid of the Inner-Demons that have haunted him for nearly 20 years.

Again, another simple plot for the Rocky franchise is smothered with sentimentality. However this time round, it’s a welcome return to the ring for fans of Balboa.
It’s very well put together in writing terms and feels almost nostalgic with the way it’s edited. There are also many subtle levels of story telling within the plot too and character development is forefront in the plot.

The gimmicky feel of Rocky 3, 4 & 5 has also been dropped.

The fight scenes are also a really well made piece of choreography.
Stallone and Antonio Tarver really trade punches in the fight too, which caused a nightmare for the injury-continuity team.

The training montage is another highlight, it’s really encouraging to see Rocky do his thing with such a determination.

The acting is another improvement in the franchise. Stallone is back on form as the Rocky we all know and love and is a little older and wiser too.

The biggest surprise in the acting is real life boxer Antonio Tarver as Mason Dixon. He’s not on screen a great deal in the acting stakes but he really makes an impression as the headstrong, arrogant fighter.

All in all it’s a really welcome return to the Rocky everyone loves and doesn’t pull any punches (ahem) with sentimentality.
My rating is up there with the originals at 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #45: The Lost Boys.

Two brothers, Sam and Michael, move to Santa Carla with their Mother to live at the Grandfather’s home after their Mother and Father have divorced.
Stories from their Grandfather about Santa Carla being the Murder Capital Of The World, spark Sam and Michael’s imaginations.
Within a few days in their new surroundings, Sam makes an impression on two comic book storeowners know as the Frog brothers. They tell Sam stories of vampires in Santa Carla and try to push him into reading horror comics, saying that they’re more like survival manuals. Sam of course, laughs it off and accuses them of sniffing too much ink.
In the meantime, through a girl calling herself Star, Michael makes friends with a group of young leather-clad bikers lead by a young man called David, and they introduce him to their hideout. While there, they tease him with what appears to be hallucinations and give him some red wine to drink.
For the following few days after, Sam notices Michael is behaving abnormally and begins suspecting that the Frog brothers were telling the truth. In a brotherly confrontation, Sam brings a sudden realisation to Michael that all may not be right and a meeting between Michael and the group of bikers brings Michael’s worst fears to a horrific reality.

It’s a fantastic story of redemption, soul searching/saving and family ties and is wonderfully written with comedy-horror in mind. The subject matters of the movie are at times quite disturbing too, there are some genuinely scary and gory bits thrown in for good measure. The comedy tends to come from the situations that the young trio (the Frogs and Sam) find themselves in.
There's also a nice, well concieved twist at the end.
The dialogue is also brilliantly placed and played by the cast.

The effects are also a wonder, they’re practical and gritty and have shaped the look of pretty much all vampire movies since. There is only one, partial green screen effect in the entire film and you can’t even see it it’s that well covered.

The acting is another bonus. Most of the cast are young, sexy and very 80s.
Corey Haim as Sam is brilliantly naïve and has a wonderful, concerned kid brother feel about him and he carries the comedy and horror elements with style.
Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander are great as the Frogs. They’re young wannabe-commandos with a strangely competent air about them, and show signs of naivety too in the strange situations.
Jason Patric is another great choice as Michael. In the words of Joel Schumacher, ‘he has a wonderful big brother element about him’, he also plays the role with a great intensity.

By far the best of the cast is a young Kiefer Sutherland as David. He’s barely on screen and yet he makes a massive impression on the story and on the viewer. It’s by far his most memorable role.

The soundtrack is haunting at times and also very 80s in the style.

Maybe one bad thing about the film is the running time. I’ve said this about movies before but you don’t want The Lost Boys to end, it’s that good.

All in all, for me it’s the best vampire movie made to date and wrote the rulebook for most vampire movies since. An 80s classic.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Review #46: Evolution.

After a meteor crash lands into Glen Canyon, all sorts of strange and weird creatures start appearing in the local area. It’s up to two college professors Ira Kane and Harry Block who were the first to discover the meteor’s secrets and Dr Allison Reed (a military employee), to find out what these things are and find a way how to stop a possible invasion. Along with a witness to the crash, Wayne Grey, they head out into the local town to discover new, alien life forms.
Involved is the U.S Army, lead by an old colleague of Kane’s, Brigadier General Woodman, whose hardheaded ways may put a dampener on the foursome’s plans of research and prevention.

It’s an extremely funny piece of filmmaking. Like with a lot of Ivan Rietman’s movies, it starts out relatively real, then heads down a path of unreal and very funny situations.
It’s also very well put together on the discovery front too, the audience is kept in the frame when it comes to finding out about the alien creatures involved.

The acting is a surprise.
Julianne Moore as Dr Reed is a surprise in a comedic role. She’s absolutely bang on with the theme of the movie.
Orlando Jones is his funny too as Professor Block, he carries the cheeky, wisecracking character well.
Seann William Scott as Wayne Grey is his usual self too, wacky, funny, occasionally slapstick.
The biggest surprise is David Duchovny as Dr Kane. Duchovny has shown signs of comedic timing before but in the movie he’s absolutely brilliant as the serious doctor who’s comedy comes from being occasionally cheeky and down to earth in a set of strange circumstances. The X-Files actor also lends himself to the theme brilliantly.

The special effects are another welcome surprise, the CGI is absolutely tip top.
The creatures involved in the film are also very original, with some bordering on comedic themselves. You can tell the filmmakers had a lot of fun with the creatures.

All in all, it’s a fun, funny movie with tongue in cheek comedy, great CGI and also seriousness thrown in too for good measure.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #47: Alien Franchise (including my review for Alien 3 from an earlier review).

Before RIdley Scott brings out his 'prequel' to the Alien Universe later this year, I thought I'd ping up a review of all 4 current Alien movies.

Alien.

Set aboard the spaceship Nostromo, the crew are woken from hypersleep due to a starnge Alien signal coming from a nearby planet. Due to Company contracts, they’re obliged to check it out.
On landing on the planet, three of the crew head out into the unknown and discover a crashed ship, filled with hundreds of two-foot tall eggs. When one of the eggs hatches, it releases a strange organism that attaches itself to one of the trio’s face and sends him into a coma.
The other two drag him back to the landing craft, unknowingly placing the rest of the crew in mortal danger.

Ridley Scott’s sci-fi horror is an original masterpiece. It combines the two elements absolutely perfectly, adding to the mix genuine dread and fear, wonder, imagination, mystery and claustrophobia too.

It’s also extremely well written in terms of character, universe and dialogue.
Inspired by Lucas’ Star Wars, Scott built a future full of dirty, grimy and well used surroundings and characters that are real and ordinarily original.
He also added a few twists to the overall story telling with original ideas on certain characters and heroes.

The acting is another bonus.
The entire cast is absolutely spot on with their characters. They’re real in their surroundings and various roles throughout the ship and in the series of terrifying situations.

The creature also is an extremely original piece of design by H.R Giger. Though it falters slightly as the man-in-suit costume, it’s still something that captures the imagination and has lived in movie history for the nearly 4 decades.

All in all it’s a brilliantly original movie that has shaped the sci-fi horror movie world since its creation.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Aliens.

Set years after the first movie, Ripley has woken from hypersleep to find that the world she knew has vanished. Surrounded by company officials and investigations, she’s ridiculed for the stories she tells about what happened on the Nostromo years before.
It’s revealed to her that the planet she described has now become part of a terraforming project and that contact has been lost with the colonists.
With a squad of Interplanetary Marines by her side, she’s sent out to the original planet as an advisor for the squad where she faces the possibility of more horror and has to face her fears that have haunted her for as long as she can remember.

James Cameron’s sequel to Scott’s masterpiece has it’s fair share of shocks and claustrophobia and borders on the horror genre but is much more action orientated than the original sci-fi horror.

It’s also just as well written too. It expands the universe that Scott created too. There’s more scope with the horizon of the storyline and there are new characters and an expansion in the ‘Company’ added in as well.

The acting again is bang on the money.
Sigourney Weaver as Ripley is expanded from the tough officer type to that of a mentally tormented, reluctant heroine. Eventually digging deep to do what’s needed. Weaver was nominated for an Oscar in the role too.
Michael Biehn is spot on as Corporal Hicks. He’s tough and take-charge and has a very approachable human quality about him too.
The Marines are primarily made up of stunt actors too, which adds to the authenticity of their roles.

The effects, especially the creatures are improved as well for the movie. Cameron, having a background in special effects, had the knowledge to use camera angles and wire work for the creatures, which expands their character brilliantly and he has a nice twist with the Alien lifecycle. The action is fantastically choreographed too.

All in all it takes a different approach to the original and is the rare exception where the sequel is as good as the first.
My rating is another 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Alien 3, Both Versions.

A movie hit with budget cuts, internal arguments between producers, director and writers, storyline changes (before during and even after filming) and studio executives having no leniency or confidence with director David Fincher.

The story, set just after James Cameron's Aliens, involves Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) crash landing on an almost abandoned planet with an enormous yet run down and barely populated prison after her cryo-tube is ejected from the Sulaco mothership.

The usual happens, an Alien Facehugger follows her in the Emergency Evacuation Unit and eventually spawns an offspring, which disappears into the prison.

At first, as usual, Ripley's magical tale of giant aliens with acidic blood and a mouth for a tongue is ignored by the powers that be (the prison super-intendant and his second in command). The Alien eventually runs amuck, sending the prisoners and the prison staff into fits of panic by picking them off one by one.
Ripley eventually is looked to for help in fighting the creature while they all await a rescue ship from 'The Company'.

Theatrical Version:

The theatrical release of the movie is the version most people are familiar with. The Alien gestates inside of a dog that belongs to one of the prisoners.
This version contains a limited storyline as it was cut and shredded in the editing room against Fincher's wishes. It's also a good 30 minutes shorter.

It also contains limited interaction between the viewer and the actors/characters, many of the prisoners are nameless faces treated like cannon fodder for the Alien.

Only a handful of characters are expanded on for the viewer: Ripley, Dr Clemens (Charles Dance), Dillon (Charles S Dutton), Morse (Danny Webb) and Aaron '85' (Ralph Brown) and that's about it.

The Alien, gladly is kept to the shadows as much as possible and many of the attack scenes are shot relatively close up to put the viewer in the midst of the action. Which works to an extent but can get disorientating.
The prison also is kept almost as secret as the nameless prisoners. The viewer never really feels part of the setting. Giant corridors that all look the same make the audience just as lost as the storyline.

Ok, the theatrical release is a marmite movie for fans, they either love it or hate it.
I'd say that it works as a horror and is a good film in its own right, but it feels unfinished and rushed. I didn't like it at first, but over the years, it grew on me.

Definitive Edition:

Now we're talking.
Fincher was put to making two similar beginnings to the movie, the theatrical version being the one the studio wanted, this 'definitive' edition being Fincher's preferred.
The dog in the theatrical version is never seen in this version, instead, an ox (used as a tractor by the prisoners) is the Facehugger's choice of gestation.

The story is expanded between the audience and pretty much all the characters, especially Golic (played by Paul McGann), a psychotic murderer and rapist who actually sympathises with the alien creature.
Most of the nameless prisoners now have speaking lines and the storyline feels much more finished and that more time has actually been taken in making it work.

A huge chunk of the middle of the film contains the same scenes as the theatrical release but with the extra/original scenes added back in, it gives the entire movie a completely different aura.

The bad point of the Definitive Version is also, sadly, the added scenes.

That might seem contradictory but the problem is this; The sound hasn't been looped in an editing room, which gives the added scenes a 'hissy' background sound. Some of the added original scenes are fine, others not so.

It's a shame really, as the Definitive Edition is by far a superior movie.

Though if you can look past the small sound problem, even if you didn't like the theatrical Alien 3, you'll certainly prefer this one.

Give it a go. I did, and even though I like the theatrical version, I'll never be going back to it now.

Overall Theatrical Version rating: 75%.
Overall Definitive Version rating: 90% (would be 95%, just the sound lets it down)
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Alien Resurrection.

The USM Auriga, a military ship has, after 200 years, managed to clone Ripley and the Alien Queen. Their goal is to use the Alien as an ultimate weapon.
In the cloning process, Ripley’s and the Alien’s DNA have been crossed at a genetic level, giving Ripley a superhuman strength.
After the creatures escape from their cells and the military personnel on board the ship are either killed or escape, it’s up to Ripley and a small group of survivors, mainly space pirates, to get off the ship and destroy the Auriga before it can land on Earth.

Sadly, after a great build up and the marmite question of Alien 3, the fans of the franchise were hit with this abomination.

It’s very stylish and contemporary in the way it looks and in the character design but the writing, particularly the dialogue is mediocre at best.
There are little original twists in the story and some of the characters and creatures but they feel more gimmicky than anything else and there’s a lot of very samey plotlines going on too.

The acting is also extremely hammy and borders on wooden at times, especially Winona Ryder.
Weaver is about as good as she could have been but looks fed up with it all.
The best of the acting comes from Ron Perlman, he encapsulates his thug of a character brilliantly and adds a touch of loud humour too.

The action is very stylish rather than realistic and doesn’t really excite the viewer. Coming from a French director I guess that’s expected but it does make the film stand out from the others. The underwater scene is by far the most memorable scene of the entire film.
The creature effects are relatively good and the CGI is well rendered.

All in all, it has a very stylised feel and look and is mainly a miss affair, but it’s watchable for post-pub entertainment.
My rating 27%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I was enjoying Resurrection pretty well up until that cringe-worthy last section.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Shame really, could have been good to see an expansion on the universe but instead we got a European Art-house wannabe.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Yeah, I enjoyed the humor and such, and Ron Perlman's performance was cool, but that was hardly an Alien film. Definitely the weakest of the series by far. People complained about 3 but it was frigging genius compared to the sloppy execution of Resurrection.

Alien 3 Definitive is the one to go for if you fancy watching the third film. By far the superior. The Theatrical is ok but still.

In regard to Resurrection, it's that bad that if you look at my past reviews, you might notice that AvP and AvP Requiem actually scored higher lolol!

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I actually like AvP and own it. I can't really recall the second one.

Alien 3 was underrated, and people complained it was too gloomy and they didn't like the ending. I thought it was fitting, and the film felt much more like Alien than Aliens. They should've just left well enough alone, I guess.

Review #48: The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park 3 (plus a runover from my earlier Jurassic Park review).

Jurassic Park.

The premise, by Michael Crichton is a partially fact based scientific endeavour to bring Dinosaurs back to life using preserved blood found in insects.

Let’s start at the movie: John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), a multi-squillionaire with delusions of grandeur has set about and succeeded in turning an entire island into a theme park full of unnatural-abominations.
After inviting along two scientists (Sam Neill and Laura Dern), a chaos theorist (Jeff Goldblum) and a lawyer (Martin Ferrero) to the park while his own grandchildren are there (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello), things inevitably take a turn for the worst when fences fail from a power cut.
The group, who are all now separated into their own survival stories have to hide and run in a desperate attempt to restore power to the park and call in the helicopters to take them home.

The movie as a whole is extremely well made. The character build up and strong acting make the movie very weighty.
Sam Neill with Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello are a chalk, chalk and cheese buddy movie in their own right.
The story adapted from the novel differs to the novel in many respects but is still extremely well written.

The cast is not just extremely good at what they’re doing, they fit the theme.
The movie is also shot beautifully. It’s very grand in feeling. Some of the sets are also extremely spooky.

The special effects used were not just cutting edge for the time (1992-1993), they still beat most movies of modern times. The ILM and Stan Winston Studios collaboration is very special.

Most of the computer work for the dinosaurs had to be created solely for the movie (albeit adapted from existing technology). What makes the movie’s CGI special is that the movie-makers asked a very simple question: "What is impossible?". Then they achieved the impossible.
The main place that the movie fails, is that it’s extremely loosely based on Crichton’s fantastic novel.

Anyone who has read the book will know that, as always with Spielberg, things got dumbed down to a more friendly atmosphere for a wider audience. Even so, at rated PG in Britain, which basically means anyone can watch, under 13s with supervision, I still wouldn’t let my own children at 5 and 6 years old watch it just yet. All I’m saying is Raptors In The Kitchen.

If the filmmakers had stuck to the book and Spielberg had been a bit braver, the movie would have been a hell of a lot better.
At time of release, the movie itself was so big it stayed in cinemas in my local town for nearly two years.

All in all a popcorn movie with a decent story and some genuine scary bits.
My rating 86%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



The Lost Word: Jurassic Park.

The premise is based on secrets kept by the Ingen company. There is a second island with dinosaurs on and Hammond has decided to send in a team of scientists to research how they have managed to live for so long without the injections needed for survival.
Ian Malcolm has been drafted in unwillingly as his girlfriend Sarah Harding has been sent to the island ahead of schedule, alone.
Cue lots of running and screaming.
　
It’s another marmite movie from me, the fans of the original film were divided with this one.
As it is, it’s a decent movie, the filmmakers approached the idea with the mindset of "we’ve achieved the impossible with JP, now how far can we push it".
It really shows too, it’s louder, faster, has more dino’s and has far better special effects.

The action is by far the best thing about the movie, it’s very exciting and fantastically choreographed. The cliff top T-Rex scene is certainly a heart stopper.

The downside is that the story has suffered. It feels as though Spielberg felt obliged to make a sequel and, though he resorted to Crichton’s books again, it feels kind of hollow and rushed. Not cashed-in exactly, but certainly empty of story.
There are nice little touches throughout the film, for example with the T-Rex, and some of the action sequences, but again, Crichton’s masterpieces of storytelling have been torn apart again.

The acting is good though. Jeff Goldblum reprises his role as Malcolm, he hits the nail right on the head.
Julianne Moore as Harding is another good point, she very likable.
The late great Pete Postlethwaite makes an appearance as a Great White Hunter and though he’s only around for about a half of the movie, he makes a lasting impression.

A marmite point for fans is the second act of the film, some loved it, others not so. Personally I though it was an original touch.

All in all it’s a thrill ride of effects and action but lacks the charm and mystery of the first.
My rating 74%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png



Jurassic Park 3.

The premise, is that thrill seekers are using the second island (from the second film) as an adventure holiday sort of thing. Ben Hildebrand and his stepson Erik Kirby vanish when their parasailing trip goes wrong and they land on the island.
Erik’s mother and father (Tea Leoni and William H Macy) kidnap Alan Grant (a returning Sam Neill) and his assistant Billy (Alessandro Nivola) and take 3 mercenaries with them too, to the island in search of their son.
Again, cue lots of running and screaming and dino’s.

This is certainly the first and final nail in JP’s coffin. It was an anticipated movie by fans but sadly detaches itself from the JP universe almost completely. The only exception being Sam Neill and a 30-second cameo from Laura Dern. It’s also written without any input from Crichton, which really shows in the extremely poor storytelling.

The filmmakers try to add a broken family trying to fix their problems into the mix, but it falls flat, you just don’t care about the characters enough and the ending is so abrupt and unrealistic it smashes any hopes that the film may have had.

There are more Dinosaurs shown throughout the movie and the Raptors in particular have been updated to modern scientific fact, but sadly that’s the only good point, and sadly again, it pushes the movie even farther from the JP universe with continuity errors. The addition of a new super-predator could have been worth while but it comes off as a cheap, badly animated gimmick.

It’s kind of a double barrel; the good points are actually a bad point.
The island and buildings seen on the island also bare absolutely no resemblance to the second movie either.

The effects are another bad point, the creatures seen are extremely animated.
When I say animated, what I actually mean is that they look like cartoons.

Getting Joe Johnson to try to live up to Spielberg's calibre, was certainly a bad choice by the studios, it’s simply an extremely poor film compared to Spielberg's lead up.

Sam Neill looks absolutely tired of it all.
William H Macy and Tea Leoni aren’t too bad, but their comedic ‘divorcee differences’ don’t do much to lift the story.

All in all, it’s a miss so big it wouldn’t get wet if it fell out of a boat.
My rating 10%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psad11e9b5.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #49: Gremlins 1 & 2.

Gremlins.

A failing inventor called Randall Peltzer is searching through Chinatown in search for a Christmas present for his son, Billy.
While there he’s taken to a small shop by a boy where he finds that the boy’s Grandfather has a small animal in a cage.
Besotted by the little creature, he offers to buy it, the old man refuses saying there is a lot of responsibility with it.
In secret, Randall and the young boy make a deal for the little animal and the boy explains that there are rules that need to be followed with caring for it.
Don’t get him wet. Don’t ever feed him after midnight. Don’t expose him to bright light, especially sunlight, as it will kill him.
On returning home, he gives Billy his present, now named Gizmo and within a few days, Billy breaks the first two rules and unleashes a an army of evil, malignant little creatures on his home town.
It’s up to him and his girlfriend and Gizmo to stop the little monsters before they end up spreading beyond control.

It’s a pretty simplistic story and sets itself up quite easily for the viewer, but the concept as a whole is very original.
Joe Dante’s direction is another bonus, he really creates an atmospheric set of circumstances and keeps the mystery of the creatures going throughout. There are also some jumpy moments mixed in as well.

Though the movie is seen as a big hit with kids by modern standard, at the time of release though, some cinemas actually banned it and warnings had to be aired to TV during trailers, warning people not to take their kids to see it. Gremlins is more of a comedy-horror than anything else, but humour is very dark at times and borders throughout on macabre and sadistic too.
It also contains some quite violent scenes, particularly the attempted killings of innocent people.

The effects are also a bonus. Using mainly hand puppets for the creatures they have a very real organic feel to them and they’re brilliantly modelled.
There is one stop motion scene as well, but it’s really well put together.

The acting is again, a good point. The actors play it relatively serious throughout, which makes some of the comedy work better.
Zach Galligan as Billy is a brilliantly nerdy, normal guy thrown into horrific circumstances.
Phoebe Cates as Kate Beringer is another normal character who has to dig deep during the horror.

A bad point is that some of the story telling is really very simple and set up in an ABC-123 set of scenes. Though, it’s not much of a downer as the film as a whole is really well made.

All in all, it’s a funny, if dark movie that has proved its worth over the past 30 years.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png


Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

After the death of Gizmo’s owner (the Grandfather from the first film), the large Clamp Corporation takes over the city block and builds a large skyscraper. Gizmo is also snatched by the company’s genetics lab and kept in a cage in the building.
As it happens, Billy and Kate are now working in said building and Billy finds out that Gizmo is there and rescues him from the lab.
Of course, Billy leaves Gizmo alone for a few hours where he ends up getting into trouble and gets wet, spawning the New Batch of the title.
Cue lots of destruction and hijinks in the skyscraper.

It’s another simplistic story from director Dante and sadly, all the dark humour and horror from the first film is dropped completely for a more friendly family film that’s suitable for kids.
The movie is a prime example of Hollywood catering for taste and wider audience, rather than for making decent films.

It’s very comic book in feel too. The filmmakers decided to go mainly for wacky comedy and funny sound effects and the movie is laden with gimmicks, especially when the creatures end up in the genetics lab and start drinking the various potions.
There are a lot of nods and homage to other films as well.

The effects are improved with the creatures though, the puppets are much better modelled but they’re very cutesy for a younger audience appeal.

The acting is a good point though.
Zach and Phoebe hit their roles perfectly again.
This time round the viewer is treated to John Glover as the Squillionaire Daniel Clamp (head of the Clamp Corporation). Glover is absolutely fantastic in the role and has a very subtle, comic book comedy about him. He's lots of fun and very enigmatic.

Another bad point of the film is that some of the soundtrack (music) is existing material from other Dante films.

All in all, it’s a big step back from the first film, but as a whole, as it is, it’s actually quite entertaining and fun to watch.
My rating 45%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #50: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990).

For my 50th, I decided to do a review of a childhood favourite of mine and yes, I do still enjoy watching it even though I'm now in my 30s :o

Four turtles, around the ages of 15 and 16, live in a New York sewer with a rat. What makes them special is that all five creatures have been mutated into human sized freaks of nature. The rat, once a pet of a Japanese Ninja Master called Hamato Yoshi, has taken it upon himself to train the turtles with the knowledge he acquired from his time with Yoshi.
After a chance meeting with a news reporter, they make themselves enemies of a secret band of Ninja Thieves calling themselves The Foot Clan, who have been operating in New York.

The story is incredibly well put together. It contains elements of the original graphic novel mixed with elements of the Saturday morning cartoon and blends them in a perfect mix of violence, stylish martial arts, fantasy, comedy, tragedy and especially, storytelling.
It’s fun, fast and exciting to watch and has perfect elements of mystery, haunting backstory and discovery added to it too, that are revealed over the course of the movie.

Some of the scenes are quite haunting too, the music adds to the feelings of upset and anguish when tragedy strikes which is something not many films of this type are able to put together.

It can be very brooding and dark at times too with some of the subject matters involved.

The effects, particularly the creatures are a marvel. By today’s standard they show a few mistakes but they hold up pretty well. The actors in the suits, mainly martial artists and stuntmen, are absolutely brilliant to watch during fight scenes.
Another plus is that all of the effects are practical and animatronic, there’s no CGI.

The acting is also bang on.
Judith Hoag as news reporter April O’Neal is fantastically out of her depth as the damsel in distress and proves her worth toward the end.
Elias Koteas as Casey Jones is another plus point. His character starts out as an enemy but eventually befriends the Turtles and becomes a key figure in the fight against The Foot.
There’s also a small but memorable turn from Sam Rockwell as a head thug of The Foot.

The main area of attention needs to go to the stunt-actors in the suits and their voiceovers.
Michelan Sisti as Michelangelo, voiced by Robbie Rist.
Josh Pais as Raphael voiced by Pais himself.
David Forman as Leonardo voiced by Brian Tochi.
Leif Tilden as Donatello voiced by Corey Feldman.
James Saito as Shredder, voiced by David McCharen.

The above parties involved are absolutely bang on the money. They’re very real and draw the audience into actually caring about the characters.

Saito’s portrayal of Shredder in particular made into my top 40 villains.

One thing that lets the movie down is that it hasn’t really stood the test of time fantastically with the effects as I said a moment ago. Still though, they work and don’t let the film down too much.

All in all, it’s a fantastically put together comic book movie and is brilliantly choreographed. An extremely rare piece of filmmaking considering the material it’s based on.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...psebffc047.png

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I am just glad to see that you gave Jurassic Park (1) the best out of the three, if you hadn't then I would have lost all respect.
What's your thought on the 4th on that is getting made?

Personally, I think they should scrap the idea of making a 4th.
They should go back to Crichton's novel and reboot the entire thing and actually use the book as the source material rather than just using certain elements.

That way they could make it a 18 rated movie with decent story rather than the family friendly adventure that Spielberg made.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

I think that is one of the rumors about the 4th is remaking the 1st, it will have Sam Neil and the girl that played the main female part I can't remember her name, so that is one of the rumors is that it is a remake.
Anyone who has read the books would like to see a remake page for page remake of the book, the movie should have been rated R if it was based on the book but as with a ton of movies that does not happen because of the crowd they are trying to attract, I don't think there is any 100 percent proof of what the 4th will be but I am kind of hoping that if will be a remake/re-think/whatever you want to call it of the first movie, but you have to keep Sam Neil and the girl I can't remember, and from what I have read they are going to do that much at least,,,,,, so who knows.

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Re: New to the site. Here's my first post: Some Reviews.
 

Review #51: 30 Days Of Night.

The most remote northern town called Barrow is subjected to 30 days of perpetual darkness every year. This year will be different.
The local Sheriff has been finding strange things in the days leading up to the dark winter, missing mobile phones, dead sled dogs etc.
What awaits the town’s residents is a ‘family’ of sadistic and brutal vampires that have been waiting for the month of night-time to arrive so they can have their fun and feed on the people of Barrow.

Based loosely on the graphic novel of the same name, 30 Days is, I have to say, one of the most thrilling vampire films I’ve seen in a while. The last decent vamp film would probably be the original Blade over a decade ago.

It’s hard, cold, fast and extremely well realised, the fact that the concept of the town’s perpetual night-time winter is based on truth it gives the movie a little more weight too.

The action is also extremely brutal but is really well choreographed, especially with the movement of the creatures against the mere running and screaming humans that they’re tearing apart.

The creatures themselves have an aura of originality about them. They’re not just the basic bloodsuckers, the filmmakers have gone for a more grounded feel of reality with them.
In the words of the director: Something that wants to kill you, eat you and drink your blood is neither sexy nor romantic.
It works too, they’re very spooky at times and some of the scenes are quite sadistic and macabre, particularly when they kill whole families and make them watch as they do.
The make up and prosthetics and even touches of CGI on their faces is really well put together too.
It’s also very gory when it gets going, especially against the plain white backdrop of a snow-covered town.

The acting is also pretty good for a slash ‘em up movie. Though not the best in the movie world it’s pretty up there with other horrors.
Josh Hartnett as the town’s Sheriff is ok, he’s at his usual self in the role but is believable.
Melissa George is a spot of beauty among the carnage and she’s not just the regular damsel in distress either.
Mark Boone Junior has a small and memorable role too, he’s at his usual too but makes an impression and plays a key part in the storyline.
Danny Huston steals the show though as Marlow, the ‘head’ of the creatures. As usual, he encapsulates his character brilliantly and is extremely withdrawn from reality.

One fault with the movie would be the resolve at the end i.e.; How they find a way to defeat the creatures. It’s a little contrived but coming from a graphic novel, it works to an extent and gives the movie it’s own little twist.

All in all it’s an original and enjoyable, if at times a gory and disturbing look, at the vampire legend. A surprisingly good movie.
My rating 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/...ps36b9d868.png