Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Dumb and Dumber To (2014)
Better than you would think
LIke many others I thought this movie was going to be that sequel you wish they didn't make. Because I love Dumb and Dumber. And it seemed the only reason they made this sequel is because the directors and one of the actors haven't been doing good stuff, the last couple of years.
But surprisingly, Dumb and Dumber To is actually pretty fun. Sure some things have changed that aren't so great. The jokes are hit-and-miss, sometimes the timing is way off and the characters of Lloyd and Harry are a little more mean-spirited and maybe even a little too dumb at times. But on the other hand everyone really did their best to make this feel like a Dumb and Dumber film. Unlike the god-awful prequel this film really feels like Dumb and Dumber and it's actually fun to see some scenes re-created, but with a new little twist, or characters from the original film returning. And even though some jokes and scenes are forced, I have to admit the film actually had a great deal of scenes that made me laugh a lot.
So as a big fan of the original film I was surprised that I enjoyed this film as much as I did. Let's all not expect a masterpiece, but a film we can enjoy, that pays a nice homage to the original and well ... really could have been a lót worse.
Reasons I didn't like The Desolation of Smaug
As The Two Towers is my favorite film of the previous trilogy and I was told The Desolation of Smaug was darker than the first Hobbit film, I was looking forward to this one. But my god, was it disappointing. Why? Well, here's why:
- Gandalf and Bilbo have to be the most important ánd most interesting characters of this trilogy. But where are they in this film? Gandalf leaves the group pretty early in the film and we hardly see him again. And also Bilbo isn't really used to his maximum capability, it almost looks like Peter Jackson forgot the film has Bilbo.
- So, who gets all the screen time, then? Well, there is this dwarf that gets his leg hurt and an elf who randomly falls in love with him and wants to heal him. And then there is Legolas, who also loves this elf or something? This love triangle is apparently so interesting that during the big scene with Bilbo and Smaug, they keep cutting back to the dwarf and his leg that hurts. Yeah, I really didn't wanna miss that.
- And this film is filled with a lot of boring and pretty much useless characters and appearances. Boring characters such as that leader of the elves. And useless appearances like Cate Blanchett showing up for 2 seconds. Or that Radagast dude, who only appears so he can lift his hat and show there is a birds nest underneath. Exciting AND useful.
- Anyway, you can really tell that Hobbit 2 is mostly filler- material. I guess you can just walk in the film during the third act and you wouldn't have missed any essential part of the story. I'm even assuming you can just skip the entire film and go right to There And Back Again and you wouldn't be all that confused with what you've missed.
- Also, I find it frustrating that Jackson didn't even take the time to give this movie a proper ending. Fellowship, Two Towers and even Hobbit 1 had cliffhangers too, but at least they felt like they had an ending. Here the film just stops in the middle of a scene, like it's a cliffhanger for an episode of a TV-show. Only difference is; this is a three hour movie! A little more effort wouldn't be too much to ask, right? I mean, the man who had 20 endings for Return of the King didn't have one left for this film and so he just simply cuts to black?
- The one thing I would look forward to with this film, was the dark tone. I thought the first Hobbit was a little too childish, with all these trolls and goblins with funny voices. But Peter Jackson apparently liked this, so he even gave the giant spiders a voice. Yeah, that just what Shelob, one of the scariest and most awesome creatures from the original trilogy, needed; a funny voice. Only cool thing I can say about that is, is that one of the voices was done by Peter Verne- Jones (Lord Crumb in Bad Taste). But still, why would you give those spiders a voice?
- I guess the voice of Smaug seemed a little more appropriate. Benedict Cumberbatch does a pretty decent job on the voice of the dragon, really dark and mysterious. Only problem is.. the dragon just won't shut up. I guess this scene had to be stretched to reach the 3 hour mark, but my God, couldn't the dragon just shut up for one minute? He really got a lot less mysterious and threatening when he just kept talking and talking. Too bad.
- So, is that all the problems I had with The Hobbit 2? Not really, there were still two things that really annoyed me. First of all, there were these horrible scenes in this little town, with Stephen Fry as the mayor/leader/master- guy. It looked like an unfunny episode of Blackadder, did they really except us to take this stuff serious? Stephen Fry was totally inappropriate and out of place, his Wormtongue- ripoff- sidekick was really annoying (the guy obviously isn't a Brad Dourif) and that Bard and his family were far from interesting characters. And still, we stay in that town for a very, very long time.
- Last thing I really hated was the 3D- HFR. I saw the film in HFR and I can't remember ever seeing something so incredible ugly. I really can't believe someone actually chooses his film to look like that. And they say that's the future for cinema? God, I hope not!
Last but not least, is there anything positive to say about The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug? Yes, there is. Like with the previous film (and also the first trilogy), the effects look great and the action sequences are well put together. And Martin Freeman is a great leading man, much better than Elijah Wood for the Lord of the Rings films. But still, Freeman doesn't get to do a lot, because of all the other uninteresting characters showing their faces.
Best scene of the movie? That is, without a doubt, Gandalf showing up at Dol Guldur and seeing the return of Sauron (with that Mordor- theme playing). That gave me some chills, as a true Lord of the Rings fan. But it was only for a short while, because right after Gandalf vs Sauron, we had to return to dwarfs with leg pains, elves in love and Stephen Fry.
The Room (2003)
"You are tearing me apart Lisa. O hi Denny. I did not hit her, I did naaught. O hi, Mark. So anyway, how is your sex life? O hi, Claudette. Don't touch me, mautherfaucka. O hi Mike. Ha ha ha, what a story, Mark. Let's go eat, haaah? O hi doggy!" Wow, this film contains more memorable one-liners than The Big Lebowski. And wow, this character talks like he took lessons from Schwarzenegger and Stallone's School of English. So yeah, it's not hard to see why this film became a pretty big cult favorite. It's not often you see a film that is so bad. The captain of this ship is director/ producer/ writer/ executive producer and main actor Tommy Wiseau. Well, we don't have to spend a lot of words to describe the acting- part, seeing the guy can't even talk properly. And seeing the acting of all the other actors, it's safe to say Wiseau is as good as an actor as he is as a director.
But Wiseau probably sucks the most as a writer. I mean, has anyone ever seen something so incredibly stupid? Characters come and go, people talk about stuff out of nowhere and nothing seems to make any sense. The entire movie Wiseau and his friends (and a weird kid that should join forces with the kid from Burial Ground: Nights of Terror) just throw a ball, while his boring girlfriend is having boring talks with her boring mother about boring stuff. Wow, it's too bad this film only lasts for 90 minutes, I wanted to see more.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Thank you, Wes Craven!
A boiler room. A man with dirty hands is building something. We hear him breathe. There's water dripping and smoke everywhere. The man shows us what he made. A glove. A glove with razor-sharp knives attached to his fingertips. The title of the movie appears. A title every fan of horror cinema should know and remember. A Nightmare on Elm Street.
What's not to love about this film? It's intense, original, scary and has a great feel to it. It's dark, funny at times and really shows some groundbreaking stuff. I mean, the death of Tina Gray is something you will not forget for a very long time. But let's not forget those little scenes; the moment where Tina appears in the school when Nancy falls asleep, the moment where Nancy falls asleep in the bath or where Glen gets pulled into his bed, following a re-enactment of the elevator scene from The Shining, only this time located in a teenagers' bedroom. Wes Craven shows us things we haven't seen before and things we won't forget.
But there's another reason why A Nightmare on Elm Street is different from a lot of other horror films. The characters are believable, likable and you really want to see how they make it out. Heather Langenkamp is the ultimate girl next door (next to Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween) and the same goes for Depp and Wyss. No horny blonde teenagers who have so little braincells they almost beg to be killed by the murderer in the woods here. And it's not just the teenagers, what to think of Blakley and Saxon, who are terrific as the parents of the main character Nancy Thompson.
But last but not least we have the killer. No cliché killer here. Freddy Krueger is the ultimate boogeyman. His looks, his sadistic laugh, his powerful one-liners, it just perfect. Robert Englund, who at that time was known best for his role as the friendly Willie in V, clearly has a lot of fun playing the character. A character that without any hesitation can put himself next to Frankenstein and Dracula.
And that just leaves me to praise well, everything else. The soundtrack by Charles Bernstein, the camera-work of Jaques Haitkin, the effects by Jim Doyle, the make-up by David Miller, they all do such a great job. Sure, at times the movie might seem a little dated, but it's fascinating how many scenes still have a tremendous impact on the viewers, even today. You might even say A Nightmare on Elm Street was far ahead of its time. Any way you slice it, you can clearly see there's blood, sweat, tears and love in this film. And it shows.
Thank you, Bob Shaye; for taking a risk and producing this film. Thank you Robert Englund; for giving us one of the best monsters in cinema history. And most of all, thank you Wes Craven. Thank you for giving us one of the best horror films of all time. Thank you for giving us A Nightmare on Elm Street.
Freddy vs. Jason (2003)
We waited all those years for this?
It took years to come up with a way to put Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees together. And while Freddy was killed off for good by his creator Wes Craven in '94 and Jason went on to fight in space, writers were busy coming up with a story for Freddy vs Jason. And in 2003 it finally happened. Was it going to be the fight all the fans were waiting to see for so many years?
Well, not exactly. It's funny how it took so many years to get them together, while in the end the story is very basic. Freddy returns, he resurrects Jason and Jason starts to kill. Yeah, that must have taken a long time to write. Thank god we are dealing with two very entertaining icons, who don't really need a good script to make a decent, entertaining movie. Robert Englund returns as Freddy Krueger and shows the glove still fits, even after all those years. You can see he's enjoying himself a lot playing Freddy once again. Jason Voorhees got a nice make-over (he looks way better than he did in, say, Jason goes to Hell) and director Ronny Yu was brought in to get some really interesting fight scenes. It's a 90 minute Celebrity Deathmatch, with two great icons who do anything possible to take each other out. Now that's entertainment.
The sad thing is that every scene that doesn't include one of the two iconic killers turns out really bad. The characters are blank and boring and the acting is really, really bad. Especially Kelly Rowland and Monica Keena are really awful. Both were obviously not cast because of their acting. But it's not just the characters, there's a lot more boring stuff. Like the plot. It's great to see the opening scene with Freddy or moments where he fights Jason. But really, who cares about Lori's mother, Lori's father, Lori's friends or Lori's troubled boyfriend? You've got two of the best characters in horror cinema and you focus half of the movie on this horrible character? Why?
But there's more bad news, seeing non of the characters are at least a bit interesting, they're just laughably bad. Like how in the world am I going to take deputy Lochlyn Munro serious? And why should I care about his nerd who has a crush on Rowland? Because I don't. So as you might guess, all are hope is on the two murdering maniacs. Yet even though they get some cool scenes together and the Krueger one-liners are nice, the make-up of Freddy just doesn't look right. Where's Kevin Yagher when you need him? And also, whereas Jason Voorhees gets some great kills, good old Freddy only gets one pathetic and lame kill. Why in the world didn't he get to do something? I rather watch Freddy kill some teenagers in stead of watching Lori and her obsessive whining. Hell, I'd rather watch paint dry than watching Lori arguing with her father.
But at the end I have to say the film wasn't all that horrible to watch. It was at least entertaining, especially when Freddy and Jason are finally face to face near the end. Too bad they had to include all those clichés, those horrible bland teenagers, bad actors and CGI. Some better writing could have made this film another great addition to the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th series. Now it's just a decent horror flick. Too bad this had to be the last time we saw Robert Englund as Freddy. But then again, it could be worse.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Welcome to my nightmare
In the early '80s Wes Craven changed something in horror cinema with his film 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'. It contained an original premise and Craven broke a lot of boundaries. Now, 30 years later, they don't do that anymore. They don't try something original. They just use an old formula that worked in the past and .. do it again. Like with A Nightmare on Elm Street. The remake.
So a character starts to fall asleep. Suddenly the location changes, the character starts walking around saying 'hello?' every five seconds, Freddy pops up as we hear a loud sound effect and the character is awake again. You can imagine this working for one scene, but A Nightmare on Elm Street keeps repeating that little gimmick over and over again. Does it grow old fast? Yes. To be honest, the opening of the film, just before the title is shown, isn't that bad. But having to see copies of that scene for the next 85 minutes is just boring as hell.
And you know what else is boring? The characters. Oh my god, how dull are those characters. The original film contained some very interesting main characters. People we cared about, people we wanted to see make it out alive. It's not a Friday the 13th, where we just want to see the characters get hacked up as soon as possible. Yet in the remake we get some really forgettable and boring people to look at. And one of the worst is the woman who plays Nancy's mother. Remember that amazing scene in the original where Ronee Blakley tells her daughter about Freddy Krueger. Well, here you get a woman that is so blank, it's almost scary. Like the part of the mother didn't matter, so they gave the role to an extra.
So the remake is nothing like the original, you would say. Well, not exactly. We get a lot of scenes that are literally copied from the original. So does that make the movie at least a little bit better? No. Remember that incredible scene in the original where Freddy slowly appears from the bedroom wall. Keep that in mind while looking at that horrible CGI thing coming out of the wall here. Man, how can they still have those kind of special effects in 2010? I mean, look at the flashback scene, where a burning Freddy is running towards the camera. But it's not just the special effects, there seems to be a big lack of creativity as well. Just look at the kills, have you ever seen anything so uninspired and boring? You have a murderer who can do ANYTHING and this is what you come up with? It makes me think back at the good old days where Chuck Russell made Freddy kill Phillip in Nightmare 3. Now that's creativity! So let's go on to one of the most important elements of the film: Freddy. I was actually pleased to hear that Jackie Earle Haley was going to be Freddy. But even a great performer like Jackie can't safe this. I mean, the half CGI make-up just takes away every bit of charisma Freddy had. The man suddenly only has one facial expression the entire film and talks like Sylvester Stallone. Just listen to that monotone voice that shows no threat whatsoever. I think Haley did a fine job with what he had to work with, but seeing this film I really started to miss those sadistic, teasing little laughs and amazing screams and puns Englund gave the character.
I also don't understand what the people at Platinum Dunes wanted with the character. They told the fans many times they wanted to get rid of the one-liner shouting clown and go to the scary and dark Freddy. Well, I don't want to ruin your party, but your Freddy ONLY talks in one-liners. And to make things worse, you couldn't even come up with one-liners yourself and so you mainly used one-liners from the other films. Why doing a remake if you want to keep the character exactly the same? And then there's one thing I don't get; with the one-liners and the many, MANY references to the original film, why the hell didn't you just give Robert Englund a cameo? Wouldn't it be fun seeing him as the reverend, the teacher or that pharmacist- guy? But I can imagine you were too busy to ask him for a cameo. Too busy writing a horrible script.
And what makes the script so horrible, you may ask? Simple; the back-story of Freddy is completely insane. I mean, in the original you could understand why the parents did what they did. Wouldn't you try and stop a serial killer if he was set free and you know your children are in danger or you know he killed your children? In this film, on the other hand, the adult parents burn a guy alive after hearing a few stories from their very young kids. That makes sense. Even one of the characters brings this up in the film, why the hell would adult, normal people burn a guy just based on stories their kids told them? A legitimate question. Still waiting for a satisfying answer. Oh, and by the way; why did Freddy have a glove in the first place? Since when do you need a glove with knives attached to the fingers when taking pictures of little girls naked? So yeah, this film is indeed awful. Platinum Dunes did an OK job on The Texas Chainsaw and I even enjoyed the Friday remake. But here they screwed up big time. The musical score is OK and Haley is doing the best he can, but otherwise this film is bad. It's contains boring characters, awful writing, bad special effects and a horrible version of one of the best characters in horror cinema ever.
Killer Pad (2008)
Not very good, not very bad
Idle Hands meets Dude, Where's My Car. Sure Killerpad isn't as fun as Englund's directorial debut 976-EVIL, but still he did a pretty good job making a simple teenage horror comedy. Sure it's predictable, sure it's everything but subtle and of course it's just allot of nonsense thrown together. But what did you expect to see? Especially when you put Killerpad next to recent comedy's like Epic Movie, Date Movie or Little Man, it's pretty nice to see a teenage comedy that cán actually make you smile once and a while. The film has some pretty funny moments, especially when Joey Lawrence pops up and makes fun of himself. The three main characters act pretty over-the-top, but in stead of being really annoying, they are funny from time to time.
To make a long story short, Killerpad is nowhere near a great movie, but it certainly has its charm. No hilarious comedy or great fun horror flick, but pretty entertaining here and there. That's it. Can't wait to see Englund's next directing job, The Viy.
Four Rooms (1995)
Bad from start to finish!
I can't believe why almost everyone says they hate the first two stories, but they love the Rodriquez and Tarantino ones? Is it because it has the names Tarantino and Rodriquez on them? Because when I saw Four Rooms I was disappointed the entire ride! The first story by Allison Anders was bad, really bad. Bad special effects, bad acting, stupid plot and I really couldn't stand that annoying Tim Roth. O My God! When that story ended, I didn't think things could get any worse. Too bad it did. The second story, by Alexandre Rockwell was even worse. It looked like the actors didn't even have a script and I'm still wondering if that chapter was meant to be funny or what. It was really one of the worst things I've seen today.
The third story was a little bit better, this time it was directed by someone who does know a little about film-making. Still I was pretty disappointed with the third story. Sure, it was way better than the first two stories, but there would be no way anyone could have done worse. The story was fun at some points, but overall the thing wasn't funny and the acting was still horrible.
And then the fourth story, by the legendary Tarantino. There are allot of people who give this film 10 stars just for the name Tarantino, because I really doubt people actually saw this. The idea was OK, but all Tarantino does in this story is show us some of his so called "cool" quotes and one-liners. And while allot of people actually think these quotes and one-liners are cool and therefor the movie is great, I think they were pretty lame. And last but not least, why the hell would Tarantino cast himself in the lead? Doesn't he realize he's a terrible actor? Doesn't he realize he's ruining his own movies by giving himself a pretty important role? You have enough money, don't you Quent? So hire yourself some actors!!
So overall, I really don't see why people hate the first two, but love the last two? Just because the last two directors are famous and popular? If you ask me the entire project is a complete waste of time, all four stories were incredibly dull, lame and annoying. And Tim Roth ... I think I haven't seen something that horrible since I saw Jar Jar Binks in the first Star Wars episode. Really, how can one man be só annoying?
Why would you do this to me, Mr. Cahill ?!
I don't really know where to start. The acting in this movie was really terrible, I can't remember seeing so many 'actors' in one film that weren't able to act. Not only the acting was bad, the characters were incredibly stupid as well.
Then there's the action. I believe that even children know that when someone gets shot, there's blood involved. But when someone gets shot in Snitch'd for ten (!!) times, there's no blood at all. Well, I guess that's just me.
To make a long story short (because believe me, I can go on for hours about this film), this is without a doubt the worst film I ever saw. This film should be number 1 in the bottom 100 without a doubt.
Ghosts That Still Walk (1977)
This ghost still walks!
Ghosts That Still Walk is one of those films that grabs you and doesn't let go until the end, especially when you see it as a child. Seeing the film as an adult, you have to admit it isn't really all that scary, but the story is very fascinating and contains allot of great mysterious scenes (especially the ones with the creepy mummy)
One of the best scenes in the movie is without a doubt the scene with grandpa and grandma in their new RV; the scene with the rocks is very exciting and pretty scary. Also the scenes where the main character discovers his mother's secret is pretty frightening.
Okay, the acting in the film isn't all that great and the film sometimes seems to get a little bit boring, but overall Ghosts That Still Walk is fun. Too bad only a few people saw this film, this film really deserves better. I just wanna say: Mr. Flocker, you've done a good job! And for all you Hollywood producers out there; If you want to remake a movie, remake this one!