Reviews

143 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Seven Pounds (2008)
6/10
Seven pounds - £7 pounds at morrisons (lie, it's 3 quid)
15 May 2013
The film might be a bit sloppy in terms of trying to force emotion. And yes, at times it was corny and a tad bit unbelievable but despite this, Seven Pounds is a good film.

It's simple, it's sentimental, it's sad. Will Smith proves he can perform a role which requires a matured person. That, is basically it. Now, i'm astounded to read that viewers had felt as if they were being left in the dark during the slow build up to the conclusion. Even top reviewer have spoken their distress towards this matter. It baffles me. From the opening scenes with it's opening lines, it was obvious what the protagonist was planning on doing.

From the get-go, we know that Ben is a disturbed fellow and sadly, throughout the length of the film, we never dive deeper into his character; into his background. Yes, he's depressed and we know his goal but we learn nothing else. And this leads to me saying that Will smith, despite playing a maturer role, didn't actually carry out a masterclass in acting out a well-rounded, enigmatic character.

You could also say that Seven pounds has a bout of the similar disease which affected Lionel Richie. It is a creepy, when you stop and think of it, that Will Smith was stalking these people. And again, the tests he puts forward to find out if they truly deserve their gifts are faulty and dour. The kid, for example, could easily turn into some deprived serial killer. Risky, Ben, Risky.

It's sad, but it's sad in the same fashion of that of a Animal charity advert: It's made to manipulate and force you to act and this is what the film is set out to do: Too simply get people to leave the cinema and pass the word to others about how sad it all is. Simple, in other words.

God Damn bloody simple. Yeah. Everything about the script comes across as a first draft. The acting however is top notch and the direction rolls in it's own poop with the script it has to work with.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It (1990)
4/10
My review will float right to the bottom of the list
15 May 2013
When compared to the book, IT is dreadful. If you leave your sweet memories of the book on the backseat of your mind and try to watch IT as a film solely made for the screen, then IT is bad.

It's well-known that the film adaption of a book usually doesn't reach the reader's expectations so i'll comment as if i've never read the book.

The pacing is too quick. you are introduced vaguely to the loser's club before quickly joining their quest to defeat IT. You never truly attach yourself to the clan and instead, you watch the film mainly because of Tim Curry's excellent performance. You follow the kids story from the beginning but you don't really care what happens to them. There just kids anyhow and when kids are the central focus of a story, then it's bound to be daft and silly (which IT comes across as sadly.) Everything seems to be done in a rush. The acting is fine with the none of the kids coming across as pretentious or annoying. The adult versions of the characters also put in fine performances.

But with many characters involved, the film never lets you get to know them in any depth and this leads to boredom. If the producers had followed the path of 'The Stand' and made IT as a ten hour TV series rather than three, then no doubt it would of been more intriguing.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Gladiator (2000)
8/10
Tell me your masculine name.
26 March 2013
The film that invigorated the swords and sandals genre once more. To not threaten the brevity of the review by repeating what everybody else already knows, i will sum up Gladitor by writing these words: An epic revenge film set in Roman days.

If it's facts your looking for ( and god bless you if so) then don't get upset when history has blatantly been rewritten in order to escalate the viewers enjoyment of the excellent story.

This film could easily of ended up being cheesy but thankfully everyone pulls of their roles. R.Scott couldn't of shot it any better. Plenty of action for the bloody-thirsty folks and the main character probably has the coolest name in movie history.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Resident evil: Extinction
28 February 2013
Extinction moves away from the amateurish and dull action of the first two films and instead aims for a more polished, eye-pleasing experience. The one area which has been greatly improved is the make-up: the zombies actually look somewhat frightful compared to the shoe-polish-under-the-eye type in previous entries.

The script and storyline is no different though, with it being standard enough to keep your attention. The story was never real resident evil's problem though, but instead the dreadful action scenes which conjured no sense of suspense; that what let down the previous film.

The same old characters are back with new arrivals and the story continues to follow Alice as she tries to keep out of umbrella's line of sight. Many fans will be peeved with the switch to action/horror from horror/(dull)action but i think letting the characters do there business while we watch them shoot zombies in a professional style works. The character's themselves are dreary and only tepid enough for us to imagine only spending an hour and half with them, but they do there jobs in making sure the film is at least enjoyable.

Overall, an step up from the previous films.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
S.T.A.R.S ( only five sadly.)
17 February 2013
Compared to the first film, Apocalpse does nothing different except taking the viewers out onto the streets of Racoon city. Fans of the video games will be glad at the arrival of Jill Valentine and even more so the creation of nemesis. But taking these two characters sway from it all, Apocalspe still gives fans plenty of moments to click their fingers and remember exactly where they have seen the current action on screen before in the games. Sadly though, as a follow up, proceeding with the immediate events after the pandemic outbreak being released from the hive, the film just doesn't do enough to bring you into the story.

The problems mirror the ones in the first film: Poor characters, terrible action and a loutish villain. Likewise with the lasers and opening of the first, Apocalypse can boast at delivering some cool moments like the havoc being caused from Nemesis' turret, ( just hearing him grunt the words 'stars' was enough to make me smile)and the chaos surrounding the city; yes, Racoon city makes for a better atmosphere than the underground hive.

So overall, the film suffers the same problems that can be found in the first film. It gives fans nostalgic glasses to wear but to sum things up, it's an average film for the ones who want to watch an horror/action
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Resident Evil (2002)
5/10
Resident evil
16 February 2013
funnily enough, my interested faded once the zombies arrived. The opening was chaotic, bringing you into the film immediately and the introduction of Alice up too the zombies was interesting. The vibe which the hive generated - a feel of imminent doom inside chrome walls, set up the rest of the film well. Now, it suffered in the character sector. The most important necessity in a horror is a strong group of characters; even more so than the frights themselves. Alice herself is weak and unlikable while the armed forces sent to investigate the hive also lack any charismatic flair. Take Michelle Rodriguez's character for example. Her chronic crumpled face syndrome did nothing but cheer me on for her to die.

Resident evil might of been the film to bring the zombies craze to the 21st century, but after watching similar celluloid's such as 'The walking dead' I can only feel obliged to hate on the style in which is used to create a sense of rapid danger for the hordes of zombies. The jagged, blurred style of motion used does nothing but weakens the suspense. I feel that they've failed at creating any fear towards the zombies. Add the awful characters and we're left with the action which is frankly dull. They might as well be shooting at...Well,a bag of bones in all fairness , as the lack of appeal & emotion involvement with the guys down in the hive leaves me wishing that they take there shooting down to the target range.

There are some good moments to be watched: the lasers and the dogs. And The opening 45 minutes lived up to it's billing. However, for a horror/action film, Resident evil is tame.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
So tight...
7 February 2013
The main appeal that caught your attention on the first film was the cast and while it failed to deliver, watching these iconic action stars hero's together was fun. Thankfully, a balance has been inserted in The Expendables 2, an warm glow that couldn't be felt in the first film. The characters know there role and for that, the film progresses organically rather than stuttering along, throwing explosives and head-shots at you every 15 minutes.

And with the new additions added to the cast list, the action scenario that Stallone strives for with film number one are now palpable. The inclusion of JCVD is enough to make you want to watch it, no matter how disgusted you were at TE1. And this leads me to say: it's easy to mix JCVD with Norris, more so after laughing at his tight pants, but here, playing as the villain, he completely stoles the show. The only scene with him that let me down was the final fight scene but no big deal. And of course Norris; made more famous by the internet than the films he has starred in. His role might be brief, but that doesn't stop him from adding a dosage of humorous charm.

TE2 is very much like the first film but without the rigidness. The story is sufficient for an action film and the action scene's themselves are brilliantly shot.

so tight.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Exorcist 2 ( forget about that awful 1970s sequel)
1 November 2012
The story is pleasingly back in the hands of the man who started it all. Exorcist 3, beautifully directed by Blatty himself, can be ranked not too far below the original.

Set 15 years after the events in Washington, Exorcist 3 focuses on a series of crime which have been gruesomely inflicted upon associates close to Detective Kinderman. The Motive is uncertain and not an inkling if suspicious in put on anyone.

Kinderman, while not a major character in the original film (though in the novel he is.) has the leading narrative in the film. George.C.Scott doesn't let us down with overtaking Lee.J.Cobb's role on playing Kinderman.

Whereas The Exorcist 2 focused on the demon still inside Reagan, portraying a different sense of evil, Exorcist 3 goes back to the films old root and dives back into the mystery of possession and how Good can Challenge evil's dominance.

With Blatty at the reins, both with the pen and camera, Exorcist 3 Is the true sequel to the one of the greatest horror story told. The film's focus on the demon which terrorised Georgetown many years back doesn't start until the latter half of the film. Before all that though, the audience is taken on a stimulating ride on belief, personal torment and grief as Kinderman (along with Father Dyer) desperately tries to comprehend the events which happened on those years back.

At times, you don't realise you're watching a horror, with the character driven story and the slow build up. But nonetheless, Blatty has a knack on making any scene spooky. The church scene has a mystical flair to it and the dream sequence leaves you dreading the turn of the events which inevitably happen afterwards. And then there's one or two scenes which catch you off guard.

If you were worried about the quality of storytelling after watching the dreadful Exorcist 2, then let me say, have no fear, this film delivers, along with Brad Dourif supporting role.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Fire! Fire!
1 November 2012
Skip to number three in the series.

Being the Sequel to one of the greatest horror stories ever written, Exorcist 2 sure does make sure that it follows the tradition of disappointing sequels. But it goes further than that. This film makes sure - with it's top starred cast and an director who's already renowned as a influential individual in the genre - that it does much more than being an awful sequel but instead to strive on becoming a horrific, life-changing for the worst and all around crappy film in general.

Richard Burton, while not miscast, seems not to be bothered about his role. Most scenes he's in ( which is many ) are filled with unintentional humour. Fire! Fire! Expressionless facial impressions and monotonous line deliveries leaves the poor bugger into a blackening ditch in which he can't climb out from. Funny, but depressing to watch him waffle around.

Then you have Linda Blair. As a child actor in the first film, she did alright in not becoming one of those obnoxious kid actors we often see. Sadly, now that she is older, her inability to act can not be accused on her being a child. Very young she still is but talent stems from a young age and watching her in this, i can expect she stars in TV roles after this.

I could write a novel on how many scenes and shots will make you laugh but like any bad film, laughter tends to be the prime reaction from the audience. Is there anything worthwhile to mention? It's interesting in parts. The back-story of Father Merrin and his initial exorcism on the African kid is intriguing but unlike Father Karris, Father Lamont personal quest on discovering himself and his beliefs is so uninteresting that the whole film collapses. Instead we get to watch the evil Reagan attempting to seduce the priest with her evil powers...Meh

Awful film with awful acting. Skip to number three, the true sequel. However, you can always close your eyes and listen to the soundtrack, composed by Morricone.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Exorcist (1973)
8/10
The Exorcist
1 November 2012
Thankfully, The script was written by the author of the novel himself, William Peter Blatty. I believe if someone else attempted to write the story of the Exorcist for the big screen, then it wouldn't of been one of the greatest horror films todays.

The Correlation between Blatty and Friedkin works in perfect harmony: With Blatty sticking close with the book's material ( as expected ) and then Friedkin having the perfect eye for delivering a film like this.

What makes the Exorcist one of the best horror stories ever is the turmoil amongst The victim's mother's, assistance and the doctors who are desperately trying to heal her. It isn't just some waffle for an hour and an half. No stupid suggestions or cheap get-outs on finding the cure to the child's possession. However, if you're an Athiest, then you could simply laugh at the whole premise of an 'exorcism' but i would like to think that the majority of people can see beyond the ' science vs Religion' saga and instead just relish in witnessing the story between good and evil.

Unlike many other classic horror films, The Exorcist's story line is delivered by a character narrative, one's personal struggle. Father Karris played by Jason Miller is one of Horror's greatest Protagonist to ever hit the screens. Then with the likes of Ellen Burstyn, Max Von Sydow and lee.J.Cob acting out of their parts in perfect fashion, the Exorcist proves you can have outstanding, believable acting in Horror and still be frightening.

Everyone on set played their part in ensuring the Exorcist will - just like the book - be one of the scariest, memorable horror films ever.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
New Nightmare (1994)
7/10
Christina Aguilera once spoke for him.
6 October 2012
Freddy is back... well, he's not actually back. Instead, an heinous and satanic Freddy takes over our screens as a his existence forges into reality while his films continue to dwindle in the publics conscious.(With the majority of the films being awful, i can't say that's a bad thing.) I really liked New nightmare: Original, showcasing the same mixture of intelligence with the first NMOES and most importantly, great acting. I was sceptical at first when knowing that a child actor stars - with them mostly being obnoxious and unwittingly annoying in majority of films - but thankfully the character of Dylan paid off.

The thought of Freddy becoming closer to reality when the longer he's forgotten is fantastic. With the actors playing themselves, you follow the hysteria that follows Heather while he struggles to cope with a stalker. Freddy's appearance: Long, drab trench coat and feroda hat, is spot on. Despite a change in Freddy, it seems he can't resist on pulling out a one-liner from under his sleeves. Made his enigmatic aura suffer a little.

Overall, I'm glad Craven decided to make another NMOES - even if it was just for the money. You sense his input being commanded with every shot. The final act gave lovers of the original NMOES an flash back on their initial experience with Freddy. With both script and camera, Craven didn't do much wrong.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Oh right! Super Spencer!
6 October 2012
Freddy has become some sort of caricature, who's silly existence is found on your kids beloved cereal boxes. Freddy himself has been heading downhill ever since attempting to convert into a one-liner comedian in NMOES 3. From there on, he's becoming to be a joke, an extremely unfunny joke. Yes, being number six in the series, one should expect that less considerable thought has been put into this film than it's earlier outputs but smother me mother, did they really have to go and give Freddy a power glove? The series in all departments has been deteriorating from number three, which could be a blessing in disguise: Imagine Final Freddy amongst good acting and story? The nightmares themselves attempt to bring out laughter than scares. Spencer bouncing up and down while as stiff as my morning wood? How can one seriously find that frightening. If you're going to market something as horror, then make sure you restrict yourself within the chosen genre. Ah yes, but Freddy is his own brand and he can be scary and funny at the same time.. No.

To be frank, It;s good for a chuckle. There were some promising scenes ( Freddy's past and the wacky village) but sadly, with bad acting and script, was overshadowed.

Wes Craven, when watching the sequels, must of told himself 'I can't let my creation end like this.' Thankfully, the final nightmare was not to be so conclusive.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
ParaNorman (2012)
7/10
ParaNorman
30 September 2012
Eye - pleasing, classic horror references thrown in and most importantly entertaining for it's target audience, ParaNorman does almost everything right to make it a family fun film.

It took a while for the film to get going, with the opening half an hour focusing strongly on the main character, Norman Babcock ( who reminds me of a young Odd Thomas.)This leads to my only criticism. The main story plot doesn't come into full focus until the final half an hour, resulting with the first hour being nothing much but eye candy and sporadic laughs.

But the film plods along nicely, never stalling or steering of. The pivotal characters mix in with one another pleasantly, ( Norman's father however has to be the worst father in a kid's film ever )and best of all, the film is wonderfully pretty. Add the excellent soundtrack and yeah, ParaNorman does everything almost right.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
NMOES5 - Freddies sickening jokes
7 September 2012
Those who have stayed with the series from film number one will no doubt watch this film in a state of perpetual confusion - is it meant to be a horror or a comedy? Those who are viewing one of the NMOES films for the first time will probably turn it off within the first Thirty minutes in disgust. Freddy has never grabbed you with his fear so why should you bother watching him any longer when he comes across as a scalded TV game show host who can't resist cracking jokes after every response or squirm from his victims?

Freddy attempting to perfect his comedy routine is no surprise. It began insidiously in NMOES3 and more so in number four. But even the victim's deaths play out in slapstick fashion. Freddy has simple lost his marbles and not in the maniac sense.

Some positives that can be said about the film is the storyline. Intriguing to say the least and spooky. But just like with Freddy, the acting becomes humorous rather than effective with every made movie. I can nip-pick on many things but meh. I don't know why but the relationship between Alice and her recovering father is nice. God knows, because the father was a totally bastard before and he's very rarely seen in this. Speaks volume perhaps about the quality of the film as a whole.

Overall, If you've never watched any of the NMOES films before, i suggest you watch the original and if liked, move on to the next two which will provide you with a concrete platform in which you can make a solid judgement on whether to take the leap into the awful-but-loved world of sequels where this film hides. If you've watched the others, then you might as well make the effort in bearing Freddy's awful jokes.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Silent House (2011)
4/10
A drag of a film
17 May 2012
With the director mimicking a single take for the whole duration of the film 'silent house' suffers to form a narrative and leaves you bored for the majority of the film.

I liked the trailer and i liked the idea of filming it in one-take even more. Sadly, with only half an hour into the film, I was wishing for a single cutaway - any type of transition as it was clear the film was failing with the single take.

After you've dragged out the first half of silent house, you are awarded to some attempt of a constructed story. However, the story is a carbon copy of every other 21st century ( Not the production company ) psychological film.

What I will say is that the acting was very good from Olsen. If you have watched the trailer then beware; it's not the type of film you will think it will be. The director and producer failed with this project and once again, it proves that we need a ingenious maverick to revamp the genre as stylish gimmicks aren't going to work
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One, two... Freddies coming for you...Three.. four - well, yes. Leave at four
23 April 2012
The beginning of the end - in terms of quality - of the nightmare on elm street films. Dream warriors wasn't too good either but the acting was on par for a film of it's type.

Now, with 'The Dream Master' we have awful acting. For me, this is enough to call it a bad film. imaginative as it is and with Freddy restoring some of his darker side, the acting brings down the production quality immensely and brings to the fore a 'straigt to TV' feel to it.

Freddy in this film seems to be struggling with his balancing act: Should I be more sinister? Or should I continue with coming out with cheesy one - liners. Most deaths were more reminiscent of the Dream warriors ( Which showcased some truly cringe deaths) than the superior and darker original and it's sequel. The death of Joey was the closest in bringing back the old Freddy ( forget about that one line he says before dragging him under ). He has become predictable and almost a caricature of himself - and this isn't to mention the other two films in which, if i remember correctly, are just as bad.

There are some laughs to have. Rick looks more off the type of guy who would hang around with Role-players rather than the school hunk and you can be certain to receive some good laughs from him ( Helllloooo baby!).

Throw in the Dues ex Machina, and you are finally left with a horrifically bad Nightmare on Elms film. The only good thing I can truly justify is the soundtrack; go and buy the soundtrack. That is all.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Hangover (2009)
4/10
Don't understand the fuss
17 April 2012
I don't think i ever burst out laughing during the duration of the film. Giggled, yes, but never pissing myself laughing like i expected on the account of many reviews.

The Hangover is engaging to say the least but i wouldn't slap 'comedy' on it. But of course, it's a comedy and this can only result in me saying that this film does a miserable job at attempting to make you laugh. The grizzly, beard Zach fellow is quickly becoming one- dimensional in the land of Hollywood and even judging the art work of future films that star him on DVD covers, you know how he's going to be.

Juvenile humour, which isn't a bad thing as such humour can be disguised behind matured characters and conversations, is what this film is. The only credit i can give it is that it was engaging and never lost it's grip on the plot but it simply fails at making you laugh.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Here comes the woman in black
17 April 2012
To start off, i will say that this film is beautifully shot. Set design and atmosphere is created wonderfully. Now, all we need to make you pee your pants is a truly frightening story. It is a common ghost story; a story i love so much but i can't put in words how much i was bored in the delivery.

After viewing, the film leaves you in a baffled state of mix emotions. Do you cuss and throw your arms in the air at the hallow execution or do you shrug your shoulders and appreciate the visual treat the film had provided you. That, or just laugh at the miscasting off Daniel Radcliffe. Him attempting to play a father is like Glitter trying to pull off a loving father role.

Daniel isn't a very good actor sadly and his role consists of him strolling the hallways with a lantern while looking perpetual depressed. As hard as it is to make people frightened today, it doesn't unlock the over-usage of jump scares on the audience. Cheap and tacky; only helps to downgrade the film into another rubbish modern horror film.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Faster (2010)
6/10
Faster
17 April 2012
Billy Bob Thorton saves this film from being another typical action thriller starring average actors. He is simply great as a cop. Dwayne Johnson can put me off from watching the film if he's starring but recently, i've started too like him as a mainstream actor. He does very little of that in this film as his role consists of him driving everywhere and whenever he walks; you can't help but feel a Arnie vibe in his approach.

The British assassin is a complete tit in my view. His accent doesn't suit his role and his method of living doesn't match up to his assassination skills. If you want an example of a perfect assassin, look no further than Clive Owen in Bourne.

The film rides along at a riveting pace and doesn't slow down until the very end. Scenes involving the preacher gives you a break from the action but i can't but think that it only distracts from the main story. A good film overall.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Nightmare On Elm Street 3
17 April 2012
The title to this film makes it sound like a Marvel adaption. Dream warriors is a decent enough film which will satisfy your Freddy needs. You see plenty off him compared to the 2nd film, but only this time, he is more of comedian than a child killer.

When i watched this many years ago, i instantly thought how inferior it was to the 2nd film. I've changed my mind. His attire hasn't changed a bit but his method of killing and even his voice has made him adapt to a new humorous persona. Some might find this good; while others will miss the darker Freddy from the the first 2 films.

Now, rather than tricking you into believing you're still awake in the real world, Freddy now has a world of his own in which he finds many imaginative ways to kill his children.

Several deaths are gruesome and makes Freddy seem more eviler than he ever could in previous films but the one -liners that boast out off Freddy's seconds before the poor sods imminent deaths will either make you cringe or spill your beans.

Sadly, the acting has been turned down a notch. As great as it was to see Nancy again, her good acting couldn't help the others to turn up to the game. The short-fused black kid made you wish for Freddy to kill him off quickly; the wannabe actor was horrible and it is best to leave things unsaid about the Wizard Master. The junkie girl i thought was decent enough.

It's a mix bag this film. Some parts are entertaining but not once are you frightened - something you never feel in the remaining films. The final act showcases an instant bout of tremendous stupidity wash over one of the main characters which will make you scream at the TV.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Freddy's Revenge
17 April 2012
The first time i watched this film, I hated it. Move on to several years later and now the second instalment is ranked second best in the series.

The acting is on par with the original and so doesn't make it feel like a cheap spin-off and Freddy remains in his darker and sinister persona. The story attempts to try and do something different, showing very little of Freddy through out the film and instead focusing on the main protagonists struggles to keep Freddy from taking over his mind and body.

Reasons why this film is lowly rated is probably because the innovative charm has worn out and the third instalment is nothing but Freddy killing off people in zany ways, something all people want too see in horror.

But unlike the later sequels, this film stays close to the original and is creepier than any other NOES. The scene with Freddy emerging from the shower stream is one of the most memorable scene in horror.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Admired the concept but the film as a whole fails
15 April 2012
I'm pretty disappointed about this film. The first hour was bland to say the least with only the scenes involving the two geezers in the white shirts making me intrigued. But even then, i felt if the humour had been turned up a little bit to much. When it came to the last third of the film, i began to love it. However, my mood fluctuated once more when it came perfectly clear in the last ten minutes how the film was going to end. The reasoning behind the whole concept of the cabin left a sour taste in my mouth.

The actors in the film were annoying. The dude with the Bong was unfunny and wished for him to die first. My decree of death swifted over too the blond girl who spent her time futilely making out with a wolf and dancing around in tiny shorts. Yes, I know the whole reason behind the characters but this doesn't change my opinion. The main lead was boring and the geek was invisible for most parts.

Another annoying factor is the use of the wrong killers. When I saw what was available too kill, i frowned and thought ' why the hell did they choose the boring zombies and not the monster with blades around his head.' But being in a Cabin, i suppose Zombies makes perfect sense.

If you are expecting a typical horror film, then you will enjoy this and will most certainly become baffled about the amount of jokes being told by geezers inside a control room. Ardent Horror fans will love it as it's basically a homage to all horror films and will appreciate the ending.

I can praise the concept and the whole idea but i couldn't help but wish they would take out the humour, make it broodier and darker, and create better characters. But then, i'm surely taking out all the fun.
13 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
One, two....
15 April 2012
What i love the most about Nightmare on Elm street is the realism that the film pulls off; whether if dreaming or not. Now,a hideous man with blades for fingers who kills you in your dreams isn't exactly reality but everyone dreams and experience nightmares and Wes Craven in this film pulled off creating a tense and dreary atmosphere during the dream sequences. Total contrast compared to the sequels where the dreams become over imaginative and cheesy.

By no means is it scary when watching it today - unless you're below the age of 10 - but from start and finish the whole experience is thrilling. 'Halloween' brought you indefatigable suspense, 'Friday the 13th' gave is a twist and ' Nightmare on Elms' brought us a original and timeless concept.

If you know who Freddy is - like many folks do - but have never watched a film of his, then please cleanse yourself from the sin of eluding the film for so long and watch it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
War of the worlds
5 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I've watched this film several times over the past years and I've always enjoyed it. The arrival of the Tripods has to one of the most unforgettable Sci-Fi scenes ever. Yes there are some stupid errors but once there up, the film doesn't give you time to rest.

Tom cruise was excellent. Not a huge fan of his but you have to give him credit for putting with his son, the biggest idiot in any film I've ever seen. But no,as a average father who is separated from his kids during normal living, he played his role well. His son Robbie could and probably has, make viewers rage out of their seats at his stupidity. Stupid for leaving and stupid because if he remained with his father, he would off witnessed and been part off taking down a tripod via frag while being as close as he could. The irony. Also many complains about the screaming coming from Franning. Yes, annoying but a child would react in that sort of frantic manner.

The feeling of impending doom is always looming low above the family while making their endeavour to Boston. Some moments are frightening (basement and the plane scene)while others are total chaos (ferry). An all round god film
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
His smile is worth the money
5 February 2012
My childhood memories are treasured in those white, sparkling teeth's of The Rock and this alone makes the film worthy of 10 stars.

On a more serious note, Journey 2 was a enjoyable film despite never even hearing or caring about Journey 1. The visuals were nice and the chemistry between the actors were good. Not much going for the storyline - Kid meets Grandpa on Island, Kid tries to escape island immediately after finding Grandpa - but as the title says, It's a journey and this film offered a pretty good one.

Overall, an enjoyable family film. Some moments of awful acting and bad effects but I'm just being picky.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.