Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
I did a script writing course via PolarPix, and write scripts whenever time allows it. I've completed a few scripts and shorts.
My twin brother, Philip Cristian Claassen, is an accomplished actor and writer.
My film reviews are based on ENTERTAINMENT VALUE (for me) and not necessarily on how well or bad a film is made. Even badly made films can be thoroughly entertaining, while well-made films are not guaranteed to be entertaining...
I'm not a critic; I'm a film enthusiast.
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Wonderful ending to an interesting series.
I almost never watched this due to that awful 'Sharknado 5', which was so bad that I wasn't even interested in seeing how the series would end. However, curiosity killed the cat, as the saying goes, and I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Dinosaurs!!! During the first few minutes I tried wrapping my head around the fact industry professionals read this script and actually gave it the green light. I expected it to be as bad - if not worse - as Sharknado 5. I couldn't have been more wrong. Although still bad - or rather, demented! - it was much better than 'Sharknado 5' and it did surprise me by being better than expected.
As the film progressed, it improved significantly. The film is extremely fast paced and loaded with action and adventure. 'Sharknado 6' features the best cinematography yet, as well as the best score and the deepest story on an emotional level, as Nova tries to go back in time to save her grandfather. Uhm, yes, you heard correctly, the series has developed into a futuristic fantasy series and we are talking time travel here. During their travels, we encounter dinosaurs, wizards, Merlin, Camelot, Billy the Kid, Excalibur...
From an entertainment point of view, I was actually thoroughly entertained (despite it being so demented, but then again maybe that's what made it so interesting). There were some good visuals, but alas, still not a big improvement since the beginning of the series. It sort of became the series' trademark.
It was nice seeing the original cast in all the films. I still don't like the April character, who is annoying more often than not. Ian Ziering steals the show as the film's hero, Fin. We even see a very emotional Fin in this installment, and the best acting yet by Ziering.
As with most of the Sharknado films, the finale is insane to absurd. 'Sharknado 6' then meets up again with the first film, and provides a nice closure to a series that lasted 6 years. I'm glad I watched it. I enjoyed them (except Sharknado 5!).
Would I watch it again? I think so.
Sharknado 5: Global Swarming (2017)
Bloody hell, this was BAD!!
Oh no, what have they done?! This was bad. Very, very bad. Excruciatingly bad! From the visuals to the premise, acting, dialogue...hell, everything was bad here!!
'Sharknado 5' revolves around Fin and April trying to save their sun, Gil, from a Sharknodo, having been sucked up into the tornado. Yawn, how uninteresting. This was slapstick joke upon slapstick joke...and nothing was funny! April is back to her superhero antics and its ridiculous. (Tara Reid's over the top (bad!!) acting is cringe worthy....aaargghhh!!!) The visuals are much worse than the first film - or any film for that matter, considering this was done in 2017!! It's almost like they didn't even try hard enough and justified it with slapstick humor.
Pardon my bluntness, but this was boring and complete and utter rubbish. This is more like a Sharknado spoof, and a very bad one at that. I didn't enjoy this one bit! Not even Ian Ziering could save this for me.
Note the film's satirical reference to 'Indiana Jones', 'Mission Impossible', 'James Bond', 'Iron Man', 'Braveheart', 'Lady and the Tramp', 'The Oman', 'Hindenburgh', 'Surfs Up', 'Eight Below', 'Poltergeist', 'Jumper', 'Godzilla', 'Back to the Futre', and Brigitte Bardot, Stanely Tucci, Donald Trump and many more!
Would I watch it again? Ugh, just no!
Sharknado 4: The 4th Awakens (2016)
I actually enjoyed this very much.
For this film, we go to Las Vegas. 'Sharknado 4' is the most ambitious entry in the series yet, with some daring stunts and visuals. While most of the visuals are still quite bad, some are actually bloody good. (Some visuals are done bad in such a funny way that they're excellent, and some are so cheaply done, they're highly effective!).
The film really surprised me with some incredible events. They pushed it to the limit on this one. There's not as much shark horror as before, and certainly more plot. There's a lot more action and adventure - and yes, even superhero action! I'm not sure I like April now being a superhero... The film is also getting more futuristic and technologically advanced.
You have to admire the series for its clever satire. We have Steve Guttenberg talking about a spider infestation (Lavalantula). They talk about "following the yellow brick road" (The Wizard of Oz). And "It wouldn't be Texas without a chainsaw massacre." (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, obviously). Then there's the vintage car called Christine. Also, look for clever reference to 'Baywatch', 'Pinocchio', 'Star Wars', 'Star Trek', 'Iron Man', 'Twister', 'The Sword in the Stone', 'Jaws', and many more. This is stuff cult classics are made of. I'm officially a fan of this series.
Screen legends Gary Busey and David Hasselhoff also make appearances. Off course, Ian Ziering is back with his famous chainsaw, and sexy as ever! He is looking mighty fine in those tight white pants...
Just like 'Sharknado 3', the ending reaches absurdity. In general, this was an exciting addition to the franchise... if you don't take it seriously. Then again, this entire series is not to be taken seriously.
Would I watch it again? Probably, yes.
London Has Fallen (2016)
Thrilling and entertaining.
More successful than its predecessor, I agree 'London Has Fallen' is better than 'Olympus Has Fallen'. This is a much shorter movie and therefore much faster paced.
The original cast is back, and Gerard Butler is in top form. 'London Has Fallen' is a very thorough and polished film, with great attention to detail. The action sequences are stunning. This film is not as brutal, but still quite violent and relentless. Although more politically motivated, politics doesn't get in the way of this great adrenalin pumping action thriller. They don't bore us with unnecessary information. This is a pretty straight forward vengeance movie without being complex or delivering twists. It has one simple mission: get the bad guys, and its taking us along for the ride!
'London Has Fallen' is entertaining and thrilling from beginning to end. And I loved the cinematography. Great ending, too.
Olympus Has Fallen (2013)
Tense, fast-paced action thriller.
Be warned, due to a lot of brutal and graphic violence, this is not for everyone's palate.
Its interesting for two films of such a similar theme and execution to be released within three months of each other: 'Olympus Has Fallen' and 'White House Down'. They're almost identical. Of the two, I prefer 'Olympus Has Fallen' due to better acting and lack of comic relief, but 'White House Down' is more toned down on the brutality. So, I guess - if you don't like it too graphic - rather watch 'White House Down'. 'Olympus Has Fallen' is a much more serious film.
The film is often compared to 'Die Hard'. Honestly, I don't agree. Just like films set in the woods are bound to be compared to 'Blair Witch Project' and shark movies to 'Jaws', action hostage thrillers will be compared to 'Die Hard'. Not fair.
Gerard Butler certainly gives it his all in this film. He is superb! The film features stellar performances from a seasoned cast. I enjoyed Aaron Eckhart as the President (much more than Jamie Foxx in 'White House Down', who was probably the worst onscreen President yet).
The action sequences are fast, brutal and incredibly realistic. This film is just relentless. The body count is exaggerated, but in general this is a tense action thriller with substance.
I enjoyed this.
'Airborne' might not be the best action film you'll see, but I rather enjoyed it. The action sequences were nicely done and I enjoyed the all-star cast.
Steve Guttenberg's character, Bill McNeil, is a bit too grouchy, and he really ought to smile more. There was no real reason why he should be so wood-faced from the beginning. Later, yes, it might be acceptable when he realized they've been set up, and off course mourning the murder of his best friend. Nevertheless, Guttenberg is looking fit and strong, and (thankfully) they find enough excuses to display his muscular physique. I didn't mind one bit!
There are twists around every corner. 'Airborne' does play more like an episode from a television action detective series, but there were enough here to keep me interested. Sean Bean's character, Dave, was underdeveloped and it felt like he was only really on screen when needed. Ron Simpson (Colm Feore) was by far the most interesting character.
The film has a thrilling, fast-paced finale. Not bad at all for a film made over two decades ago. I enjoyed this!
Would I watch it again? Yes.
More entertaining than expected.
Yes, just as the title indicates, one shouldn't expect too much from this film. The script isn't great and the visual effects aren't mind-blowing, but then again, this is a TV movie. The only reason I decided to watch this, is because it is a 'Sharknado' spinoff (badly made films I enjoy very much!).
The film features surprisingly good acting. It is also very well shot, and the visuals aren't the best, but not entirely cringe worthy either. You know what you're in for from the very beginning, so just sit back and enjoy the ride. This disaster creature feature delivers lots of action and even a few rather suspenseful scenes with youngsters being pursued by giant spiders.
I loved the cameo by Ian Ziering, saying he has "shark problems". This just proves 'Sharknado' has become a cult classic. Steve Guttenberg - star of the 90's playing a has-been star of the 90's - leads the film, becoming the film's hero. If you don't take it too seriously, you will be entertained.
Would I watch it again? Maybe.
Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! (2015)
These bad films are so good!!
Fin and April are back for yet another adventure. This time around they're in Washington DC together with their daughter, Claudia, and April is pregnant again. The film follows directly on 'Sharknado 2', and Fin receives an award for his heroic actions in 'Sharknado 2'.
The story rushes into the action way too quickly, with the next storm hitting Washington just as Fin receives his award - and all hell breaks loose. The disaster scenes are exaggerated, over-ambitions and really badly done. And, off course, the shark effects are as bad as ever.
I had very little hope of this being as interesting as its predecessors, but after the rushed opening, the film surprised me by getting better and better. There were much less humor (apart from the bad shark effects), and the film had significantly more substance and action. Even NASA is involved here. The news reports by real-life presenters and reporters gives the strange events a sense of realism.
The acting isn't bad considering this to be a cheap movie. There's even appearances by Bo Derek, Frankie Muniz, and David Hasselfhoff. Cassandra Scerbo is back as heroin Nova. Fin has his trademark chainsaw again, and I must say, Ian Ziering is looking mighty fine! There's an amazing shirtless shot of Ian - just saying...
The film features clever satirical moments. 'Sharknado 3' is the best installment in the series, and also happens to be the highest rated in the series. The ending was really pushing it to the limit, though, seriously! In general, this was very entertaining.
Sharknado 2: The Second One (2014)
Still bad, but so enjoyable.
Having survived the great Los Angeles Sharknado, our heroes Fin and his wife - back together - are on their way to New York. The opening scene on the plane might play like a dream sequence, but proves just how unpredictable these films can be.
Ian Ziering is back as Fin, and as handsome and sexy as ever! (Gosh, he looks so good on screen). 'Sharknako 2' features seasoned actor Judd Hirsch and country superstar Billy Ray Cyrus. The acting is much better than 'Sharknado', and the entire production in general is much better. The shark effects are still very bad, though - especially for a movie made as recent as 2014. You'd think with sharks being the film's main draw card, they'd spend more time and money designing the shark effects. Then again, I suppose this is the humorist look they were aiming for...
'Sharknado 2' was seriously very entertaining - in a strange kind of way. It is faster paced than 'Sharknado', with more action and more suspense (although still a comedy). The script and dialogue are also a bit better. There's great enthusiasm from the characters to stop the Sharknado. There are a number of very unexpected kills, and there are some very funny moments (some scenes are simply funny because the visuals are so bad!!). Either way - again - I enjoyed this much more than expected.
Would I watch it again? I think so, yes.
Ne Zha zhi mo tong jiang shi (2019)
Am I missing something here??
Due to the film's high ratings I was really looking forward to it. Unfortunately - despite every effort - I was disappointed.
Let's face it, the animation is awesome! The slow motion scenes are fantastic, as if watching a big budget superhero movie. The premise itself is interesting, as well. However, the execution left me shaking my head in disappointment. There's so much silliness that I just wasn't interested. Even dramatic scenes were suddenly ruined by the ever-present slapstick humor - similar to a kiddies cartoon.
With a mature theme like good versus evil - and demons - its interesting that they opted to go the slapstick route, which would appeal more to a younger demographic. Young children also won't really understand the concept of good and evil as portrayed here. Also, I'm certain the Chinese will find this more relatable than we ever can, due to their myths, gods and beliefs. Christians will most certainly view this as blasphemous. As for me, I just found it uninteresting and silly. Ne Zha - supposedly the film's anti-hero hero - is one of the most unlikable characters seen in a while in an animated film. I didn't root for him at all.
The creators really allowed their imaginations to run away with them on this one...maybe too much...
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Missing the point...
Director Marc Webb was trying so hard to accomplish with the Spider-Man franchise what Christopher Nolan achieved with the Batman franchise, but he simply isn't as polished as Nolan.
If you were to skip the first 80 minutes of this overlong movie, you really won't miss much (ok, maybe just watch how Max Dillon becomes Electro). As for the rest, there were so many scenes that could and probably should have ended on the cutting room floor. There's simply too much uninteresting drama and unnecessary humor. And whenever Peter Parker and Gwen are together, their scenes drag the film down. Their relationship is boring and rather annoying, actually.
The many character introductions are too comical, and mostly a waste of time. I felt like hitting the 'forward' button more often than not. I enjoyed the fact the film finally showed us what happened to Peter's parents, though.
'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' only really gains momentum at around the 80-minute mark, when it becomes mysterious and a lot more interesting, with a lot going on all at once. Harry - Peter's best friend - is back (why he was left out in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' is still completely beyond comprehension). Only, Harry is not the same character Harry used to be in 'Spider-Man' (portrayed by James Franco). Harry is a devious character in this film - as if there are not enough villains already... (Dane DeHaan's performance as Harry is nevertheless very good).
The film features some amazing visuals and photography, but ultimately way too much CGI - and I mean way too much! The villains also destroy things without purpose, simply for the sake of destruction. It didn't feel realistic and was merely an excuse for more CGI.
As mentioned, the second half of the film was far more interesting than the first, and if I were to watch it again, I'd probably start watching around the half-way mark.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Not bad, but rather watch the original 2002 film.
Although I probably should review 'The Amazing Spider-Man' as a standalone film, I can't help myself from comparing it to 2002's 'Spider-Man', since it is a reboot after all.
Here are some of the major differences in the story: Peter Parker's love interest is Gwen (a character who first appeared in 'Spider-Man 3'). For some reason they decided to omit the Mary Jane character, as well as Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn. Peter's Aunt and Uncle doesn't nearly have the same characterizations as the original characters, whom I so loved in the first trilogy. They've also entirely cut Mr Anderson, a character so incredibly well portrayed by JK Simmons. Also, according to 'The Amazing Spider-Man', Spider-Man's webs are not entirely natural. Instead, Peter designed a device to properly utilize it, and there's even a flashing red light when he uses it...!!
Andrew Garfield is a fantastic actor and I really enjoy watching him. As for the Spider-Man character in this film, though, he comes across as immature - even whilst in Spider-Man outfit (no, actually, especially when in Spider-Man outfit). Speaking of immature, Peter reveals his identity way too soon to Gwen - before they were even going steady as a couple. Their love story just wasn't believable (or engaging) enough. The film also has significantly more humor, which doesn't come across naturally funny as it did in the original. I found some of the humorist elements distracting and annoying.
As for the action sequences, there wasn't really anything that blew me away. Much of the film's action scenes were completely CGI, and clearly so. With a running time of 136 minutes, the film dragged at times with uninteresting scenes. There were way too little actual Spider-Man action. This played like a drama with Spider-Man along for the ride.
Rhys Ifans stars as Dr Connors, who becomes the villain The Lizard. While I have mixed feelings about this villain, it wasn't entirely bad, although maybe leaning a bit more towards the horror genre than fantasy. In its entirety, the film was entertaining from various perspectives. Andrew Garfield certainly made it worth the watch, thanks to his natural acting. Compared to the original 'Spider-Man', though, I favor the latter.
The Mask (1994)
Fantastic fun with incredible visuals.
The film that propelled Jim Carrey to super-stardom, and rightfully so. Carrey is incredible in 'The Mask', and the film might not have worked so well without him in the lead. His dog, Milo, is also adorable!
'The Mask' is so slapstick and stupid, yet incredibly entertaining - and funny! The film pays tribute to Looney Tunes cartoons, and actually plays like a live action cartoon. The film boasts incredible visuals not seen before at the time, and still holds so well by today's standard. The sound effects are also very effective. The Club scene is truly awesome - not to mention that famous dance scene! The Cuban Pete scene is so much fun. (Jim Carrey actually performed the song himself, and the song peaked at No. 31 on the Official Charts).
If you're looking for lighthearted fun with loads of action, humor and jaw-dropping visuals, 'The Mask' is the perfect choice.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Not as effective, but still enjoyable.
The original cast and director are back for another fantastical adventure. Harry now knows Parker's secret, and is still fueled by vengeance. The relationship between Mary Jane and Parker is becoming increasingly complicated, especially with her career in a downward spiral. May Parker now lives in an apartment, and is still as wise as ever with good advise.
With so many characters - each with their own subplot - the film's running time is significantly longer than its predecessors and also easier to forget about some of the characters when they're not on screen. At times it felt like I was watching different films. JK Simmons is back as comic relief, but his humor feels forced, more slapstick and not as effective. In general, there were a lot more humorist elements here which seemed to clash with the issues at hand.
The main villain is escaped convict Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), who becomes The Sandman after an experimental freak accident. Unlike many villains, he has a very touching back story. His character also links to the events in the first 'Spider-Man'. Speaking of villains, Harry now follows in his father's footsteps, but the script can't seem to make up its mind what they have in store for Harry. Is he still Parker's friend or foe? His character swings backwards and forwards ultimately causing Harry to be a very confusing character.
Enter Gwen, who gives Spider-Man THAT kiss - similar to the famous kiss Mary Jane gave him in the original 'Spider-Man'. Mary Jane goes on to say to Parker "that was our kiss". Uhm, but was it? Who was to say he didn't do that to other girls he saved prior to kissing her that night? We also see a very different side of Peter Parker.
In general, this installment contains more (soap opera) drama and is also much slower moving. Nevertheless, it is still exciting to watch with some incredible action sequences. The very ambitious climax is almost entirely CGI and maybe a bit too fantastical. For most part the film's visuals were outstanding - especially the Sandman effects prior to the climax. Although not as good as the first two films, it was still enjoyable.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
The original cast is back, and the story picks up where 'Spider-Man' left off. At the end of the first film, Harry swore to avenge Spider-Man, whom he believes to be responsible for his father's death.
The saga continues, and is as stylish as ever, with Sam Raimi back in the director's chair. The film's main villain is Otto Octavius, who becomes nothing more than a creature due to a malfunction of one of his experiments. The visual effects are really good, and this is another great script with thought-provoking dialogue.
Mary Jane is now an accomplished stage actress, Harry is head of Oscorp, May Parker is still coming to terms with her husband's death, and Peter Parker is fighting his own inner demons, which is starting to take its toll on his powers. JK Simmons is back as Mr Jameson, and is hilarious - I just love him in this role!!
They never do explain how Parker manages to change outfits so quickly, and what becomes of his clothes, but for the sake of making the movie work, lets just forget about that detail (the same as Hulk's clothes when he turns into the hulk, and then back to human again...). The action sequences are fast and spectacular. This is a great sequel to a spectacular film.
My all-time favorite superhero movie!
This Sam Raimi 'Spider-Man' is in my opinion not only the best 'Spider-Man' film yet, but also the most perfect superhero film ever made. This film excels on every level.
'Spider-Man is stylish, dramatic, thrilling, exciting... It contains a perfect balance of humor and heartfelt emotion, and a love scenario that is believable and relevant. Danny Elfman's score is fantastic, and the visuals are dynamic.
It is a classic tale of a nerd, Peter parker, who becomes a hero - and is brilliantly portrayed by Tobey MaGuire. Tobey really owns the character, and he is still my favorite Spider-Man. Parker's transition from ordinary guy to Spider-man is incredibly well done. Willem Dafoe is also very good as the antagonist, Norman Osborn. The circumstances and events leading to him becoming the villain, Green Goblin, is well set-up.
Kirsten Dunst stars as Parker's distant love interest, and James Franco as his best friend, Harry Osborn. There's so much character development during the course of the film between these three main stars. JK Simmons is hilarious as Mr Jameson. I absolutely love him in this role!
'Spider-Man' is an emotional action adventure fantasy with a great script, great characters and awesome action sequences. The film also so well illustrates how one wrong decision can change your fate, and those around you. This is so much more than just a superhero movie. I love this film!
Merveilleuse Angélique (1965)
Boring compared to the first film.
Angelique returns! The saga continues with Angelique now deprived of her wealth and a refugee. She reunites with her first love Nicolas - now a gang leader and a very different character to the character we saw in the first film.
With too many characters coming and going and the film dragging, I didn't find it as interesting as 'Angelique'. I could hardly keep track of all the characters. Angelique then becomes a successful chocolatier. She is as witty as ever, which salvaged the film (for me) to a certain extent.
I missed Jeoffrey (Robert Hossein) and the love story was far too much like a daily soap opera. I didn't really find any of the characters compelling - apart from Angelique, off course. The costumes and locations are once again stunning, though.
To be honest, 'Angelique: The Road to Versailles (originally 'Marveilleuse Angelique') was rather forgettable. Compared to 'Angelique' selling 60 million box office tickets, 'The Road to Versailles' only sold 10.3 million tickets. I rest my case.
I love it!!!
Ah, I have such fond memories of seeing 'Angelique' (not in 1964!) when I was young. I still enjoy it just as much today.
And who could possibly have portrayed Angelique better than Michelle Mercier? She is sensational! Whilst in love with Nicolas (Giuliano Gemma), free-spirited Angelique is forced to marry a man she's never met - Count Jeoffrey de Peyrac (wonderfully portrayed by Robert Hossein). Described as "horrible" I actually found Jeoffrey rather desirable...
'Angelique' is fast-paced and exciting, and Angelique's wittiness ensures a good dose of humor, too. The film features beautiful locations and stunning costumes. 'Angelique' is an action-packed, epic film with loads of twist and turns, and interesting revelations. Add conspiracy theories, murder, betrayal, deceit, false accusations... I love it!
The Man from Snowy River (1982)
Good film, but a bit too slow for my liking.
I've long since wanted to see this film because of its good reviews and high ratings. Now that I've seen it I can't really say my film knowledge would have been any poorer had I not seen it.
Don't get me wrong, this is a good film. Its just not entirely my type of film, and I didn't find it all that compelling. I did enjoy Jim (Tom Burlinson), who was a young, but strong character. Jim is very determined, who overcomes obstacle upon obstacle with ease. Jessica (Sigrid Thornton) as the love interest was an equally determined and strong-willed character, and found these two complemented one another. It was interesting seeing Kirk Douglas portraying two very different characters.
As for the film in general, I did find it a bit slow moving. Nevertheless, as I said, it is a good story and anyone who enjoy a romantic drama with a bit of adventure, will surely enjoy this. The film features beautiful cinematography and great silhouette shots. 'The Man from Snowy River' certainly is worth a watch.
'The Man from Snowy River' received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Foreign Film (Australia). It was a hit at the box office, earning $20.6 million on a $3.5 million budget.
Would I watch it again? I doubt it.
Bone Tomahawk (2015)
I never want to see this again...
Who doesn't enjoy a good cowboys and indians movie? Be warned, 'Bone Tomahawk' is not your average...
The film takes its time before anything happens. It is slow paced, and there's a lot of dialogue - probably too much. I found the film overlong.
The action starts when Troglodytes abduct the town's doctor, Samantha, as well as the deputy and a drifter. An unlikely rescue party then goes after them: an ageing Sheriff, an old and forgetful deputy, Samantha's husband - who has an injured leg - and a "smart man" (to use his own words). When things started going very wrong, I think I longed for those quieter moments.
There's some incredibly gruesome scenes that can never be unseen. I certainly didn't expect this from an all-star cast Western. I never want to see this film again - not because it's a bad film. Oh no, on the contrary, it is so well made that it is just too realistic, and disturbing.
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
UGH!!! What the hell??
When did Thor become slapstick? 'Thor: Ragnarok' contains an incredible amount of slapstick humor. In fact, not a single scene is without humor - in the process removing every inch of realism or suspense there might, should or could have been.
Speaking of realism, the film is absolutely loaded - and I mean loaded - with CGI. Every single scene contains CGI - lots of it!! And what is Doctor Strange doing here? Doesn't he have is own movie? I hate it when characters cross over into other films (like The Avengers, Justice League, Iron Man popping up in Spider-Man and so many other superhero movies...yawn...).
'Thor: Ragnarok' is so fantastical, illogical and far-fetched - and that darn slapstick!!! - that I could only manage 30 minutes before hitting the STOP button. (How did I actually last that long??). It is very rare for me to dislike a movie to such an extent that I don't finish it. As a result I can't comment on the film in its entirety, but decided to do the review for reference purpose. From what I heard, the ENTIRE film is slapstick. Ugh, don't think I'll ever continue watching this...
Slugs, muerte viscosa (1988)
Nothing really special here...
This comedy horror features unnatural dialogue, and humor that is uncalled for and stupid. I didn't really find anything special here. It wasn't scary, eerie, or all that interesting. Everything from the acting to the lighting, cinematography, make-up and acting were pretty standard. Interestingly, all the characters certainly do have a very healthy sex drive...
This isn't entirely a bad idea - since we've had films about every conceivable insect! - but I think it desperately needs a modernized remake - with better dialogue!!
'Slugs' is for fans of B-movie horror comedies only. If I may, I'd much rather suggest films like 'Ticks', 'Arachnophobia' or 'Mimic'.
Would I watch it again? No.
Way too much slapstick for my liking...
I saw 'Casper' many years ago. Watching it now as an adult crushed my fond memories of the film. The film contains an incredible amount of slapstick humor (just the way Americans like it...).
The film mostly plays like a live action cartoon. The humor is more suited for kids - very young kids. I simply couldn't relate to the humor at all. As the film progressed, it matured a bit, introducing deeper themes to an otherwise silly story. Unfortunately, this hint of maturity arrived much too late in the film and by that time I couldn't care less. The constant slapstick humor was too much for the film to be salvaged.
On a positive note, the film's production design is incredible with amazing sets. The visual effects, I'm sure, were very good for its time. For anyone who has lost a loved one, the film is sure to resonate long after the closing credits. Pity about all that slapstick. Then again, Casper really is based on children's cartoons. The integrated mature theme was merely a way to ensure a wider appeal. Unfortunately, it didn't satisfy my senses.
Motel Hell (1980)
I don't know what besieged me to watch this. I'm sorry I did and would like to forget this horrid film. The title alone should have deterred me from watching the film.
The film starts off very mysterious. 'Motel Hell' is a sick and demented film. Nina Axelrod stars as the film's heroin, Terry, but she's not much of a protagonist. Only days after losing her partner in an accident, she seems to have forgotten about him and is clearly having a good time, and then wants to marry a guy she hardly knows!!!
If that isn't preposterous enough, keep watching. Believe me, it gets much, much worse. This is an absolutely ridiculous story. I'm sure this is meant to be seen as a joke, but I didn't find it the least bit funny, or entertaining for that matter.
Would I watch it again? Most definitely NOT.
Hilarious!! I loved it!
Based on the popular board game 'Cluedo', 'Clue' makes a rather interesting and very funny movie.
Tim Curry is excellent as usual. I enjoyed the very different characters, and the setting in the big mansion. 'Clue' has a clever script with quirky dialogue. Listen carefully and you'll find the dialogue to be laugh-a-minute funny! "Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage." Love it! The constant sexual connotations were equally hilarious. (Also note the subtle references to 'Rocky Horror Picture Show.)
The film starts off very mysterious and hilarious. The second half of the film is not quite as funny or interesting as the first half, but this nevertheless is a very entertaining film. It is a guessing game until the very end. But then the film presents us with three endings. The firs ending is definitely my favorite and also the most logical. The final ending is highly improbable, yet still exciting. In general, I thoroughly enjoyed this. The film hits you with twist upon twist.
This would work very well as a play.
Would I watch it again? Yes.