Reviews written by registered user
|8 reviews in total|
How many people now know the name of Howard Lovecraft? I do not think
he is known, but known in narrow circles, and it's sad. Adaptations of
his books in high demand do not enjoy, and to finance them no one wants
because they are unlikely to pay off at the box office, and that's why
one out trash, or Class "B" in his works. Adaptations of the good I can
distinguish except short film "The Call of Cthulhu" and film "Muse
Pickman", not Hollywood movies, art-house, at least, not class "B".
Films series "Legacy of Valdemar" is not taken not by what the story Lovecraft, but, nevertheless, from the great maestro in this movie very much.
Few talk about the first film, but rather on its merits have many screen adaptations of Lovecraft. In this film was not an original storyline, do not argue. But in this film was a tremendous atmosphere of Lovecraft books. The gloomy house, nice clothes, a monster of the other world, Gothic surroundings, this is what made the first film amazing. There's even a Lovecraft himself was lit, a great actor picked up on his role. There's even Bram Stoker managed, briefly, in the frame to appear.
Still, after watching the first part had some not realizing until the end of the story is not told, it was clear that we are waiting for a sequel. And continuing happened, however, atmospheric.
At this time, there are a lot of Lovecraft. Here and "Nekronamikon," and the cult of "Dagon" and Cthulhu, Azathoth even had time to appear. I want to say that the film is very pleasant to fans of Lovecraft, I at least think so. For this is the most worthy, what happened in recent years based on the books of the great master.
I have great respect for James Cameron. I am very fond of his "Terminator", "Alien" and "Titanic." He made his long break. The script for "Avatar" was lying on the shelves for many years, many were waiting for this movie. Of course, all the sublime expectation, "It's Cameron." I did not like the movie. In the first due to the fact that they call it the best film of the 21st century, why he is the best? It was in fact a lot of other, more interesting movies. Secondly, it is absolutely stupid plot, the lack of game actors. This is not a movie, and one large computer. If anyone should be praised and so it is not Cameron, and artists. This film does not deserve such a large box office receipts, it is simply empty.
Serial killer Ted Bundy is like a young George W. Bush. One responsible for the death 38 people, and the other responsible for the death of thousands. Bush personality is very interesting, controversial, some admired, some hate it, but, nevertheless, he is a part of American history, and most would like to know everything about it. Many were waiting for the film. Directed by Oliver Stone, who is also filming "Natural Born Killers," "Alexander" and "Nixon", a good director with an interesting job. The film covers the young Bush, a time when he was still in the shadow of his father. I could not find a job, an alcoholic, was simply a loser. But the film lacks the "chosen quotations" George W. Bush. Film where Bush is smarter than this, George, the real George never spoke with a sad face to Russia. I put the movie 9 out of 10 because it's a really interesting movie, I do not regret watching. There are disadvantages, but all the same show was very interesting. I advise this film, I think most Americans would be interesting to see the president, whom they chose. But the Russian, I would not recommend watching this movie.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I do not like this franchise, you know why? I think, you know. Each
piece is removed by this algorithm: I saw a vision of death, saved by
friends, others die and heroes will die in the course of the film
simply absurd deaths. This was repeated four times, well, perhaps not
tired? The first part was good, it was the original. The second part
was boring, but all the same with some new ideas. The third part I
consider the best in the series. The fourth part is utter nonsense, but
this is the part most of all to work.
I waited for the fifth part? Not really, but he believed that Tony Todd will be given more screen time, actually, I thought that it plays an important role in the plot. But everything I hoped it would not be such nonsense, which was the last movie. Trailer speaks for itself, in this part (again) there is nothing new.
I think, I did not write it, but all the same give my opinion on the new film. Fortunately, I was pleased the film more than its predecessor. The first 20 minutes I was even interesting to watch what was happening, but then went went. It's almost exactly like in the movies, but the other actors and other deaths.
I watched the movie on kamripe, because it was just a burning desire to behold this movie. In the cinema, I would not have gone in 2009, I had enough, stupid waste of money.
Special effects themselves are not really the best (although I looked on the computer), sometimes even catches the eye is that it drew on the computer, even killing some bad look. Tupizm and absurd enough, but at least not in such quantities as in the past film.
As for the role of Tony Todd, it is low, namely 6-7 minutes of screen time. Most of all I remember the trick with the bridge (yes, early in the film) and a scene in the hospital.
As for the ending, the writers obviously wanted to freshen up the film, I liked it at first, but then I saw on the screen the words "Two weeks later," I made everything clear, and I was very disappointed.
In the end, I want to say that this is not the best film of the series, but it's not a bad sequel. Yet, these "destination" it's time to tie in some places five part was boring because the plot moves were repeated and repeated all too predictable. And it's interesting to me, well if this movie will be repaid and will be released if (God forbid) 6 part? A matter of time.
As I said earlier, I've always been interesting biography of American
serial killers, especially I was interested in the Zodiac. He was
mysterious, brutal and brilliant. It was never caught (probably). We
have before us an example of how not to make movies about serial
killers. It's just disgusting film, I absolutely did not like it. After
viewing, I had a desire to give head to anyone who took it. Plot: Is he
here? From an interesting and mysterious stories Ulli Lommel made some
vague blur. Who knows, I remind, Ulli Lommel directed this
under-painting. This man just turned on the theme of serial killers,
especially, he loves every heresy to do with biographies. For example,
the movie "В.Т.К.killer »(not with Kane Hodder), such a stupid and dull
movie I have seen. The plot in this movie develops slowly, 82 minutes
well, very boring. Yes there are murder, but they do not save, they
look so primitive. You would have heard the voice of the zodiac in this
movie, it's just awful. As if pensioner aged 167 years begins to read
the book. By a single vote Zodiac is no longer wish to watch. There is
nothing to not like it. Where all the actors were chosen? At the studio
where they filmed porn movies? Well, looks like it. The most
charismatic character here is ... a spectator who tries to watch this
nonsense entirely. The viewer has to show all his willpower to
overpower and as soon forget this nonsense. The voice of the Zodiac, I
have already complained. But that's not all. There are many
disadvantages. Other features: I think I misspoke. Well, features, and
drawbacks. The film was shot in 2.000.000 dollars. But for that kind of
money you can withdraw a masterpiece. In my if I give the old video
camera and actors from the studio Asylum, I removed the better. Of
boredom, I said about boring dialogs and disgusting characters already
mentioned. About lousy voice Zodiac I said. For example, a detective
film base quite lame, I can not. Here, everything is bad.
It was after this movie I hated and Ulli Lommel. He's just lack of talent, why he takes? To annoy the audience? Probably. Let removes trash, but do not be touching biographies of American serial killers.
It's stupid, ridiculous, boring, ugly and depressing. That impression will leave behind this film. Do not waste your time on this movie. It is better to look at the Zodiac in 2005, well, or a version of Fincher. That's really good films.
Not a very positive attitude to Louis Leterrier. In all his paintings,
Awesome desire to cut the money simply striking. Although he began
well. His "Transporter 2" was a good fighter. Then Louis switched to
comics and took "Incredible Hulk", which, unfortunately, I dislike. Why
dislike? Because the film does not pull on comics, he was dull, gloomy,
and one-time, but for the cast to improve cost estimation and forget
about the plot and stuff. And now the "Clash of the Titans, a film
about the war gods and men, well, of course, in 3D. The cast of the
first magnitude. Here and Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes
and Danny Huston. The very idea is good and the actors too, but why
should not I like? Let me explain.
The first forty minutes, I liked it, plenty of action, special effects, etc. But then it is so annoying, one action, it's just get bored. Actors themselves sometimes overplayed. Everything is their beautiful camera angles, nice scenery and, of course, 3D. Louis Leterrier planned to make a blockbuster, but not even thought about the plot. The film only lasts for actors and annoying special effects, well unless we have not seen enough? And why such a pathetic name? By title, I thought that the gods would fight with each other, but I got endless trip to the crabs for a horizontal mountains and deserts. And in general, popular actors themselves say something just a couple of phrases in the movie and all, well, then disappear and finally say something pathetic. If even shoot a blockbuster about the gods, we must just think about the story, so everything was like in history, not to push any crabs in 3D. Even for the sake of the actors do not want to overstate the estimate. The film boring, insipid. But what can I say, a movie with absolutely no soul. The fact that he filmed for the money, it is evident, Jonathan Libesmen lift a decent sequel, his films with a soul, he knows how to make blockbusters and at the same time he thinks about the plot, and not dully shoves 3D and the cast of the first magnitude. Wait, certainly will be better than the original.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Everything started in 2003 when director Marcus Nispel remake shot at
"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It turned out much better than the
original and so many directors and producers take the example of
Marcus. And since then the fashion for remakes. On Halloween, Fellow,
Horror Amitivilya and others have already filmed remakes. And of course
just for the money, nor for the sake of art. Now, for the cause took
Marcus Nispel, and he set a goal off a remake of the classics horrors
The plot remake lay storyline of the first three parts of the original. That benefited from this remake. Jason has become a more powerful, faster and much smarter. Why is smarter? Stupid maniac did not put the traps in his lair (as Jigsaw). In addition, early in the film Jason has not killed the girl, he took her to his lair, because it reminded him of his mother, and he decided to temporarily save her life. On the other plus I probably will not speak, because it is better to see and appreciate. Horror fans should enjoy. Elegant classic horror film about a maniac. The film pays tribute to the classics, which we love. It's a shame that the extensions will not, but since the end of the film hinted at a sequel.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I respect the work of Michael Feifer. He certainly is not perfect films, but much better than that Ulli Lommel. Michael is obsessed with the topic of serial killers and took a lot of movies about them. Many of his films have received harsh criticism, but, as his efforts to remove a good movie seen. Ted Bundy, the most popular American serial killer. All his victims were young girls. He killed the ear, and then raped. These actions resulted in him that he had parted with his beloved, he tore off her anger, he tore the anger on others. Most of the facts of life Bundy were included in the film. Of course not all the facts, but that is no reason to curse the movie. Corin Nemec, though not like Bundy, but well played and I remember a long time. Other actors also coped well with the roles, also pleased the presence of Kane Hodder, aka Jason, and this is a real gift for fans of horror movies. What are the facts here are displayed? Bundy's childhood, his first love, school days, that he wanted to go into politics, how he defended himself in court. It is no longer enough. Certainly not a few blunders, but with this budget, filmed pretty well. A good and interesting movie, but not a masterpiece. I do not understand why he did not much like. The fact that the director is trying to remove a good movie it is evident, he tried, and got quite good.