A horror movie and the bad guy is a...ummm...mirror? Yes, indeed that is exactly what we get with this film. I suppose Hollywood has done the mirror thing before but I don't remember it being like this one at all.
The first reason why I wanted to even see this film is it was starring two of my favorite ladies from a couple of my favorite TV shows. One of them is Katee Sackhoff and you may remember her from Battlestar Galactica or the more recent film, Riddick. She so far has never let me down and she doesn't here either. There are a few times where she does some creepy, scary shit but she does it well. The other woman is Karen Gillan, and you may remember her as being The Doctor's companion from Doctor Who seasons five through seven. She does a great job here but there are a few times when her real accent kinda seeps through a bit. Which I gotta say it doesn't really bother me much because I really love her real accent, it adds to her attractiveness. Other than the accent thing she does a good job playing a woman that seems to have some type of mental trouble. There is a few others in this film but they just seem like little side characters, or maybe it was just me watching the leading ladies.
As far as psychological horror movies go this is pretty okay. There is some really good creepy parts, and I really mean creepy. For example the vase...remember the vase! A couple good jumps involved here as well. Just a couple though because as I said it is a psychological horror film instead of a slasher film. It does excel in that area so I guess it did it's job. The effects involved are mainly blood and distorted faces. Just enough to creep you out when they take place.
Even though it has two woman I enjoy watching and they do do very well in this film I still do not know what to think of this film. Yeah, it is creepy as hell at times but I am a fan of a film that explains shit. This movie explains nothing, Yeah you get to find out what happened to the two siblings but you never get to find out anything about the mirror. Oh yeah, spoilers, my bad. But it really is extremely annoying when they don't explain the main antagonist of a film. Maybe they wanted it to be a mystery so you keep asking questions. I hate that. I just want to watch a film that has a beginning, middle and an end and explains everything in the middle. You know, a proper story!
I can recommend it to people that like creepy but for anyone that enjoys full stories then just bypass this one. Definitely don't have your children watch it unless you want them sleeping with you for 3 weeks and they'd probably never want to see a mirror til they are 18.
Lets get something straight here first...Not all animated features are made for children! This film is absolute proof of that statement. There are alot of children's movies that have little bits and pieces that were directed towards adults but this one here was made for adults and has bits and pieces for kids. I mean it was based off a book written by Neil Gaiman and let's face it here, he doesn't do alot of kids stuff. He does in fact write some good fiction in the horror genre and thriller genre as well.
This was directed by the claymation film-god, Henry Selick. People in the know will most likely remember him from The Nightmare Before Christmas back in 1993 or James and The Giant Peach in 1996. Most people believe Nightmare was directed by Tim Burton, a legend in his own right, but he was the writer and producer not the director. But in Burton's defense, Nightmare was written well, produced well and directed well. But Selick was the claymation mastermind behind Coraline and I couldn't have asked for a better film. Most movies have a few or more flaws but if that's true here then I can't see it.
All the voice actors do such a perfect performance as to make the viewer really believe these stop-motion animated people are actual people. Dakota Fanning, who I normally aren't a fan of, Does a great job in this film as the title character. I dare say it her best role, well at least the best I've seen her in anyway. Teri Hatcher plays Coraline's mother and her other-mother. I have to admit that Miss Hatcher does by far one of the greatest, scariest and creepiest mother figures in any film I've ever seen. Granted she only does the voice but I can assure you you will forget your watching an animated film at the beginning.
The effects are, as I've said already, made of claymation. Everything in this film is either just a small model or the characters being made of clay. This basically means that the director and the films animators would set everything up, take a picture, move what needs to be moved only by a fraction of what it needs, take another picture and continue this process thousands of time until you get the end result in a great fantasy horror story. And this one is truly a great film, both in effects and story. It is most closely related to The Chronicles of Narnia but with the emphasis on children thrown out the window.
This film is incredibly well made and also so incredibly creepy with frightening images that I would say don't let your kids watch it unless they are used to scary things. I can guarantee that they will have nightmares all night long if they are not used to it. Anyone that likes scary things and creepy things and claymation films will love this. There is also a 3-D version as well for those people that want creepy things thrown directly into their face. I have seen it both ways and enjoyed it both ways. I really think you won't be disappointed after watching Coraline, it still would have been cool to see this tale as a real live action film but I do love the animation style in it. Let me know what you think if you've seen it or if you just finished it.
On many occasions I have stated that I am in love with the horror genre. The weird thing about this particular genre is that about 99% of them are not very good. Most of them are just a rehash of popular horror stories that originated at the beginning of film itself, just sometimes they change something in a very minimal way. But for some reason I still love them. I really can't explain it anymore than that. I can just tell you that I will watch them when I get my hands on them and even some of the really bad ones I watched more than once. I think my personal favorite genre within a genre is "The Slasher". I have a huge soft spot for the slashers that boomed in the late 70's and spread like the plague in the 80's. they have made a comeback with a few newer ones but also have given us some terrible remakes. And yes, I even watch them more than once. I do believe that most every move made deserves a second chance. Almost all films get labeled instantly after the first viewing, and using that logic there are a ton of films I wouldn't like today if that was my way of doing it.
So onto the basis for this article. The Cabin in The Woods was labeled instantly as a throwaway film because it was just another slasher. This one I did like on first viewing but I did watch it again almost right after I watched it the first time. I just wanted to see extra stuff my eyes did not catch the first time. And this film has alot of stuff to try and keep your eyes busy with. There isn't really a twist in this movie but there kinda is at the same time. What I mean by that is when you sit down to watch this picture with the run of the mill thinking about it being a normal slasher you are surprised during the first scene with something none of the others did before it. Even the first time I watched the first scene and "it" happened I was like...uummmmm, WTF! It does have a story like all the others but it just has the added somethingsomething that makes it stand out in a positive way. You'll know what I mean when you see it.
And just like all the films that came before this one it has some character cliches as well. All have a jock, a nerd, a stoner, a chearleader/slutty girl and the very flawed main girl. Cabin is no different. It has them all and it makes you ask questions about the films it stole it's ideas from along the way. Alot of people say that anyone that doesn't enjoy this film it's because they do not understand it at all. That is not the case, this is a very easy movie to follow and it explains everything as well, so difficulty.
The acting is done pretty well. For the most part all is believable the entire time. I would say the only people that anyone will recognize is Thor, Ellen Ripley and the two administrators for the...show. Sigourney Weaver's cameo is a really awesome welcome sight and the other...classics from past films are a pretty cool set of cameos. And on a little side note about the main actresses is they are both really good on the eyes, especially the main girl, Kristen Connolly.
I loved this movie and will watch it many more time before I am finished watching movies forever. It is just a plain fun spin on the old classics that I remember from way back in the days of old. I would strongly urge anyone that likes horror with a dash of comedy added in for good measure that hasn't seen this to get it this very minute. Even if you haven't seen the old slasher films it is quite easy to follow. Only be warned there is massive amounts of blood spilled and some nudity and some language, but lets face it, what's this movie style without those three elements?
The world has a problem! Well actually the world has a ton of problems but only one has any effect on this blog. That problem I speak of is reboots, re-imaginings and remakes of popular properties. Comic book films are a huge one in this arena but they are not alone to say the least. Every few years a new director comes along and thinks he or she can make the movie better than it already was previously. It's not only new directors either, some are proven and acclaimed directors that believe the same thing. Some pictures were done the correct way the first time and need no other story, no other change. Okay, so I may have to rephrase that a bit. They weren't done correctly, they were done better the previous time. Although, that is not the case all the time. Sometimes the best one is the first redo of the property and sometimes it's the last one. Not all are created equal in this respect.
The biggest, most overused films for this are comic book films. And the most amusing part and also the most disturbing part is no director has gotten them right yet. How can you mess it up when most of the well known comic characters were written decades upon decades ago? The story is already there! Just film it the way it was meant to be told! I mean most everyone already knew the origin of Spider-Man so when you don't do it right people get upset. And not just comic fans. Or the filmmakers get the hero origin correct but completely destroy the villain. You can't just take out a part or add a part because it fits "your" story better! Let's get one thing straight here Hollywood! There is no such thing as "YOUR" story! There is only the story that was written all those years ago that got famous in the first place. So, if it was good enough then, why is it not good enough now? I mean seriously, how would the filmmakers like it if they had a story all those years ago that they were proud of and some douche bag comes along and changes the whole thing? Sometimes I may be able to overlook the change if the film itself is enjoyable but I would still like it to be the way it was originally written. Occasionally a film is released that is one of these but the audience knows already it is a different version of the character from a different universe but was still one of the original comic stories.
I will continue to look at Spider-Man for this first part. Back in 2002 Sam Raimi released Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire as the webslinger. While it wasn't terrible, it still needed some help. Maquire was halfway decent, J.K. Simmons was perfect and Kirsten Dunst was horribly atrocious. But this article isn't really on the acting so much the film as a whole. So, the origin story was done partly right here. Partly, because all they managed to get right was he was bitten by a radioactive spider. All other aspects were changed to fit the filmmakers vision. Which I said before, the vision was already done decades before, all you had to do was film it. Willem Dafoe was a perfect choice as Green Goblin but too bad they destroyed him. Instead of a green goblin we get a crazy dude wearing green armor! It really is a shame they had to do that to what could have been the best version of the Goblin.
Two years later we got one that most, including myself, consider one of the best comic book films to date in Spider-Man 2. This is just so much better than the previous outing with the one exception being Kirsten Dunst was brought back. She really kills these for me. Alfred Molina does Doc Ock about as perfect as they come, although he doesn't look like the original character he still does it good. And besides Elton John just wasn't available at the time, cause let's face it, he looks like the comic version.
Now three years after that perfection we are delighted with a hodgey podgey thrown together story that should have been the Spider-Man crowning achievement. But, as everyone knows, it was terrible. Had so much potential in the Black Suit Spider-Man and the appearance of Venom! Instead they throw in the stupid ass New Goblin! I'm sorry, but I do not remember that one from the comics. With all the characters in the Spider-Man universe there is no need to make up new ones for a film. That's not the only problem here, the guy they chose to play the absolutely huge Eddie Brock is...Topher Grace? WTF? That was the guy that popped into their heads when they thought of Spider-Man's greatest enemy? I will give this film one thing and that is it has great effects. But it still killed the franchise.
After five years and the ownership of Spider-Man about to be hanging in the balance Sony reboots it. So we get the origin story again! Awesome, right? Hell no! People want to see Spidey not Peter Parker. I did love the Lizard and Andrew Garfield. I loved Emma Stone. I liked how Spider-Man's web shooters were done right in it. I liked it better than 2 of the other films for sure.
In two more years time we get yet another Spidey film and while it has two great looking villains, I still believe they should stick to one for each film. There really isn't enough time during a film to do backgrounds on 2 separate villains. It is really cool to watch visually but ultimately falls short in my eyes.
So all that being said about the Webhead we can see that even though there are two different directors doing two different visions of the same character they still start the downward spiral because they can't for the life of them just follow the comic book story lines. That would be much easier I think. Fans would like that it was completely faithful. And the non fans would watch it no matter what anyway so why not just make it right the first time?
I am now gonna move onto a different franchise that most non fans love but true fans have extremely mixed views on. I am talking about the X-Men. I will say this as quickly as I can. Since the cinematic X-Men universe began not one of these films has been done right. Yeah they decided to make First Class but failed to make it about the first First Class! And they have botched just about every origin story in it as well. How hard is it to just take from the original story and film it that way? Why change it? Anyway I am gonna have to say something now that most people will hate but it has to be said. Wolverine is not the X-Men! Yes, X-Men include Wolverine but every single story does not revolve around him at all. You want to know why? Because he is a boring ass character. First off, they have him all wrong. Hugh Jackman is about a foot too tall to play the character! Wolverine is like a half tiny person with claws and a bad temper. That's his story. So please stop putting him in the center of every one of these films. Well I guess he was the non center of one and that was First Class, but they made up for it in the sequel! Not to mention that the idiot that made the first Wolverine stand alone film should never be allowed to make another movie as long as he lives. He should resort to making commercials about adult diapers from now on because they will be filled with about the same amount of shit as his film was. That easily could have been one of the best comic based films of all time but no they had to add more characters then I can count and destroy a character that so many people love, I don't particularly like Deadpool but it is quite embarrassing what they did to him. I will have to emphasize...just follow the original stories please, I am begging you!
Superman! Something near and dear to my heart. The big blue boy scout! He has been done pretty well over the years, not flawlessly but done pretty well. Christopher Reeves will forever be known as the hero. May he rest in peace forever because he will be remembered forever because of this character. He has been changed as well because of all the different directors that have tried to tackle him. Even though the more recent Man of Steel film changed somethings about the guys origin I enjoyed this movie immensely because of one thing, Lex Luthor! What's that you say? Lex Luthor isn't in it? Oh right, I know that, that's precisely why I liked it as much as I did. I very much dislike the character and he has been done to death and was about time Supes could actually fight someone. I do understand Luthor is the most famous of Supes rogues gallery but come one, that doesn't mean he needs to be in all of them. Whatever happened to all the other villains he fought in the comics? Now we have a new Superman film coming down the pipe and guess what? Lex is making a come back! Damn!
There have been a few reboot/remakes that I do like and it's not necessarily because they are better films it is because they maybe added something that I like or rather didn't hate. One of them is Texas Chainsaw Massacre and as most who know me know, I love the 1974 version. It just brings something new to the table. Family is still crazy but a different crazy. Shows Leatherface making his masks, which hadn't been done before. Also another film I liked over its original counterpart, Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. Star Trek Into Darkness was just a spectacular fun film that was all around well made. I was never a fan of the original because the film kept saying Khan was a genetically superior super soldier but you never see him do anything but talk...boring! The remake has him doing the super stuff and it is by far acted way better.
I know this article has been really a mix of stuff from the get go but like I said a few too many times...I am not a true writer. I do this for fun and sometimes I hope some people will agree with me or not but at least we can talk movies. I do hope that my original idea of the stick to the material that came first is giving you some thought at least. But, to explain it a bit simpler my ideas for remakes, reboot and re-imaginings isn't just for films alone. It goes for comic books, novels and video games. I just wish that when a person decides to redo an already established property they would at least do some research into it and show the world how it was meant to be seen. I do not care about someones new take on an old story especially when they want to change most of it. I really don't know if I got my point across at all but I will see.
I have come to a realization in the past few years. That realization is that I am incredibly difficult to satisfy fully with a film. Especially when it is a remake of a film I thoroughly enjoy. With this movie being a remake of the 1953 version, which was based on a radio show, which in turn was based on a book written back in 1898 by H.G. Wells. What I do not understand about filmmakers is their ability to take a story and make it worse than it was done previously. I have a few questions for all involved with this movie. 1. If it is called War of The Worlds, when do we get to see this war? Seriously though, don't call it War of The Worlds if the audience doesn't get to see any war between worlds. Why was Morgan Freeman used to bookend the film and explain the demise of the martians? It's not that it was the great Morgan Freeman, I would have the question regardless who bookended this. So, what the writers are telling us is that they couldn't figure out a way for the aliens to die or a way we can learn it the way they meant it without a voice over at the end explaining it.
I won't lie about it, I was incredibly looking forward to this film. It was a modern remake of a film I watched when I was a kid that I loved so much. The trailer showed some really cool stuff! I found out later that the cool stuff shown was the only cool stuff in the film at all anyway. So I will say something first about the writing. Not really the style of the writing but rather the way they chose to change the story through the writing. The original film actually showed you a bit of war so in that the original is to blame as well, but it at least showed some. This one should be called something different because you see no war at all. We do get to see what look like it could be a war on the other side of a hill but we really don't see it, the film just hints at it. The only war I see during this movie is the war that Tom Cruise has with his children. Maybe that should be the name if we want it tell the truth. Steven Speilberg actually said he wanted it to be a family drama inside a disaster movie. Well, if that's the case then change the name to something more appropriate like "Tom Cruise Running While Trying To Save His Stupid Kids!"
On the subject of the kids in the movie! Why did they write them to be the most annoying two children on Earth? I do not have children of my own but I have been around alot of kids in my day and I have never seen any act the way these two do. Absolutely obnoxious from the moment they arrive on screen. Pay close attention to Dakota Fanning because I'll be damned if her character doesn't make you want to through her outta the van and give her to the invaders. I am of the opinion that she cannot act very well, which is not I know, how the rest of the world sees her. Every film I have seen her in she plays the same character and that character is a very young but smarter than the world type person. It's actually quite annoying to say the least. Justin Chatwin, also is incredibly annoying too. He just has to be a smartass all the while not listening to his father. The family unit in this film fails on most every level. I never started to actually care if any of them made it out alive. I believe if they wanted the audience to care for them they should have made them a normalish type of family instead of a broken home one.
As much as I thought this movie was a complete failure it still wasn't all bad. The special effects are phenomenal! I love the fact they made the invaders use the tripod look from the actual novel. The 1953 film had some really cool martian vehicles but they weren't part of the book. Cool, but not right. But, that scene near the beginning when the invaders begin their attack and the tripod comes out of the ground is so awesome that I can't fully hate this movie. Also, when all the people are trying to board the ferry and the tripod shows up overlooking the seaside town is just a great spectacle.
I have really been going on about this film a bit too much so I just wanted to throw out a few other quick questions that I won't try to answer but will leave it to whomever hasn't seen this to figure out or someone that has seen it and is boggled as I am. I am a Tom Cruise fan. I like the majority of his work but seriously why is he in about 99% of the frames of this film? I understand he is the star of the movie but it is called War of The Worlds for a reason not Tom Cruise's face. Another question I have is can you really survive the impact of a 747 airliner while hiding behind a wooden door and some cement? How was the guys camcorder still working when all other electronic devices stopped? How did Cruise's son in the film arrive at the mom's house before everyone else when we last saw him running toward a war zone that we didn't get to see?
All I can say to all is watch it if you want to! I can recommend the effects is all, but the rest is forgettable. I think it is one of Speilberg's worst films to date. Let me know what you think below or if you have some answers for the questions I brought up.
I really do pity anyone that doesn't watch 80's movies because you are missing out on some classics. I will admit that most of the 80's films aren't acted well and maybe they don't have the best special effects by a long shot but most of them are so much fun and they make me laugh! Laughter is good for the soul afterall and when I want to laugh I just watch any number of 80's films. This is another film type that was discontinued and it's a shame, 80's films I mean. I know the 80's are long over but that doesn't mean we can still have plain old fun films to watch. Maybe I just have a soft spot for these movies because I was raised in the decade in question. If I had to choose one decade of film to watch for the rest of my existence it would be this one.
This is starring a bunch of people. Andrew McCarthy is an 80's staple and he has quite a few great films under his belt including this one. He always kinda plays the same person in all his films but I can overlook that because they are pretty good films. The other big star is Kim Cattrall and she is great on the eyes but her acting is...well...80's acting? I say that because the 80's were full of goofy overacting type ways, almost as if they are letting you know they are only acting. On a different note with the acting, Meshach Taylor plays Hollywood, and he is awesome at it. He plays the part of a gay mannequin window dresser and he is hysterical in this every time he is on screen. There is another character that actually isn't an actor at all but just makes you laugh when he is on screen, Rambo, he is a English Bulldog that is just so cute and funny. Okay, so I may have a soft spot for Bulldogs seems as I have one but he really is funny.
The story is weird to say the least. I mean it is easy to follow as it's not a confusing film but I don't believe something like it has been done before. Maybe it was just so odd that it wasn't done again and the writers don't have too many credits to their names either. This was the best of the credits as well. The quick version is it's about a time traveling Egyptian that becomes a mannequin in the American 1980's. Like I said...odd!
Anyone that just wants to have a good time watching a film that doesn't require much thought should definitely check this out. It is kid safe but just be warned that alot of mannequins are nude and they are realistic on the top half. So, just enjoy a good 80's comedy.
I do remember seeing this in theaters back in 1995. They really do not make movies like this anymore. I believe Hollywood gave up on making great films and replaced them with CGI fests that plague cinemas every year now. Don't get me wrong I do love some good special effect films but I occasionally want something that is just plain good and made to intrigue the audience. And this film does that in spades!
As far as the acting goes...it is pretty perfect. I haven't even one complaint from this movie in the acting department. Morgan Freeman is a legend and I can't, off the top of my head, think of one film he made that failed or even halfway failed for that matter. He makes every picture he does into a very special viewing no matter how many times you watch them, they stay special because of him. We also have Brad Pitt and he has rarely failed in this field of work either. This coming in the mid 90's, which is really when Mr. Pitt's career started his huge boom, is by far one of his best ever roles. He had a few roles before this that were great and lead roles but they don't compare with maybe the only exception being Kalifornia. The real star though is the one man not on the poster, Kevin Spacey. That man has made some very memorable films just like the other two have but he really knows how to make crazy work. He isn't even in this movie very long, maybe 30 minutes, but the screen time he does have he steals the whole damn show. Absolutely maniacally crazy nutcase to end all!
Movie was written by Andrew Kevin Walker and of all his writing credits this one sticks out like a sore thumb, in a good way. He has a few other credits that are good but this one is about as perfect as you can get. Directed by David Fincher to almost perfection as well. This man has some really great things in his repertoire of film. He has some that come pretty close to this one but I have to say this was a very special one because of the talent he had to work with made it that much better.
Se7en got robbed when it was awards season because all three people that star in it should have been nominated in some degree. Just for an example, Brad Pitt and the "What's in the box?" part he deserved something. Instead, the academy decided the only thing it was worthy of being nominated for was Best Editing? Really? That's kinda blasphemous to me!
I would recommend this to anyone that likes the aforementioned actors because you won't be disappointed in the least. Also to anyone that likes good old fashioned cop thrillers too. But be warned of the language, the crime scenes and some disturbing images. There is one really good jumpy part in the whole movie and I won't give it away but if it's your first time watching it then when it happens you will know it, because your heart will jump outta your chest.
Back in the 90's I had a very strong interest in serial killers. Not in the "One day I hope to be like them" kind of way. It was more like I enjoyed reading the true crime novels because the real stories are hell of alot better stories then any fiction novel. I don't mean they are "better" stories but more like weirder, stranger and creepier. They always say that truth is stranger than fiction and I do believe they were right. There have been thousands of books and thousands of films on serial killers and most of them are completely made up and a whole bunch were loosely based on real stories. I find the actual real story was so much more creepier and mind boggling than the made up stuff. Let's take one of my favorite scary films, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Although this is a great film and extremely creepy as hell, it was loosely based on a man named Ed Gein from Wisconsin. The filmmakers had taken a few elements from the actual man and they managed to create a cinematic masterpiece. But in all honesty, as I have been saying from the start, the real guy was a whole lot stranger.
Now onto the film called Copycat. I obviously watched this movie in the theater back in 1995 because as I stated before I am interested in the genre and I was senior in high school at the time and I lived in Maine and I can't emphasize enough how much of nothing to do there there really is. I enjoyed the film and have watched it many times over the years. It is a well made thriller with some great acting for the most part. Sigourney Weaver does what she always has done and that's a good thing. She really is a great actress and she plays a perfect agoraphobic, but the part I love about her character is the very quick like 5 second part near the end where she kinda goes all loony and doesn't care anymore. Holly Hunter puts in a good job as well even if her character was written in an odd way. I only say that because at times I have the feeling that her character never went to police academy and never learned how to deal with some certain situations. I can't really give you specifics because I just have this sense during the movie. But I can overlook that because she is just so petite and just good on the eyes. I know that's probably a bad way to look at it but it's all I got. I said that for the most part the acting is good and I meant it. The only person I kinda have an issue with is William McNamara. In everything I have ever seen him in he just doesn't make me believe any of his characters at all which leads me to, he just isn't a very good actor. He seems way outta place in this as the story's killer. I found it odd that when I looked up his filmography that he has been in so many roles and he isn't too talented. Even more odd is the fact that I do enjoy a few of them including this one.
A very good film all the way through. It's not jumpy in the least as it's not a horror movie but a thriller. I definitely would have to suggest not watching this with your kids if you have them because there is quite alot of crime scene photos that include mutilated people and nudity. So, not a family movie which you probably got from the start with the serial killer angle. If you like Silence of The Lambs and Se7en then I gather you will like this one too.
Legos have been around for a very long time as in since like the 30's when they were made out of wood. When I was growing up in the 80's is when the modern day Legos came into existence, maybe it was the late 70's but I really don't remember that all too well as I was real little. They have taken over the toy section of all stores and they have increased in price by a large margin. But they are still pretty cool from the Star Wars and comic book sets. Also the video games are completely addictive and are just plain fun and a way to spend an afternoon in a stress free way. They finally decided to make a movie on the celebrated toys and it doesn't suck.
In this film there is really a whole lot of voice actors in it. I could name them all but that would take all day and it would be boring as hell if you had to sit there and read a bunch of names. I will say that it contains about half of Hollywood. The voice acting is absolutely spectacular and most people will be able to tell who is voicing each character.
Made entirely in CGI and it looks really good. Considering the film is about a bunch of toys, which are made of plastic, it looks awesome. Everything in it looks just like plastic from the close ups to the distance shots. I mean, even the smoke, fire and water are made of the tiny block toys! It really does look that cool.
I gotta say this movie is pretty funny and also just plain fun to watch. Obviously this was directed towards kids but I think the whole family will get a kick outta this movie. It does have a ton of cameos from well known character from all kinds of old school cartoons, live action movies, artists and fairy tales. Just trust me and check it out, after all it has Batman in it. People like Batman!
I have never heard of this film before watching it. I read the synopsis and it kinda struck me as entertaining. It remains to be seen if it actually is. Yeah I am watching it as I am writing this. I love the story of Frankenstein, whether it be the book or the original film from 1931. I have never seen it as a horror tale like so many other folks. I see it first as a science fiction movie and it makes a turn into a very tragic tale. Although this has no effect on the film I am watching, it just so happens to be what it is based from.
This is a handheld camera movie and I like maybe 2 films that were made this way but I continue to watch them because I am a moron. Most movies filmed in this manner move the camera around way too much so you can't see anything cool happen. Majority of the time the people holding the camera are too busy running away so you see nothing. Or they are filming when they should be running away. I know I can't be satisfied either way but if you want to make a film and make it realistic by making it a movie about a film crew then make it realistic. If you want to make a film and let people see everything then film it normally so we can see it. And there is always a scene or two that is at night and they use a night vision filter and all the actors have Riddick shine to the eyes.
When it comes to the acting in films like this I kinda give it a pass because the people are supposed to be acting normal. Now if you're supposed to be acting normal and you can't do that then just please quit your profession. There are a few things that happen in all films of this kind and that's there is always one person that is a complete cry baby and whines about everything and there is always one that is a hard ass and no matter what happens they have to do what there gonna do. This movie is no different.
Okay I'm not gonna waste anymore of anyone's time with this one because I just wasted an hour and a half watching it. UUUMMM....skip it, unless your the type that likes boring films about what it would be like to film a whole lot of nothing and show the viewer nothing. An absolute waste of time. Best part, which isn't in the film, is the cool poster.
Most every person on this planet knows what this article is about. But, for those that don't I will explain it in layman's terms, to tell the truth I only know layman's terms so it would be all you're gonna get. There are a few of these type of films in recent years but for the most part they are an 80's phenomenon. What they are is basically any film that you watch that is acted bad, directed bad, written bad and has terrible effects. It's also a movie that you can't stop watching because in some weird way it is still the most exhilarating thing your eyes have ever seen. And also that picture you can't pull yourself away from is also one you will constantly go back and watch throughout your lifetime. The films I will write about are in absolutely no particular order because I can't for the life of me figure out which terrible movie I like better than the rest.
1. Flash Gordon (1980)
"FLASH! AH AAAAH!" See every single movie has some redeeming factor. But I can't say the film isn't fun, because it is alot of fun. Pretty much everything in this film is rubbish beyond belief but it still is an awesome picture. This film was made to be extremely corny and campy so in that would mean it is one of two on this list made to be cheesy. There is one thing that the producers spared no expense on and that is the fantastic Queen soundtrack. Everything would be better if it had a Queen soundtrack! Even the poster is kinda cheesy with a slogan that says "Get ready to kick some Flash!"
2. Solarbabies (1986)
This movie stars a ton of the who's who of the 80's right here. And they all do extremely not well here. Okay so it goes like this...rollerskating teens in the future play a lacrosse meets basketball on rollerskates, while in prison until they find a mysterious orb that can communicate with them and tell them how to be free. That right there is a recipe for total awesomeness, am I right? Alot of people say it has some connection to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome in that it was a chopped out side story. Though it does look like it at times but that would be one hell of side story. I don't know the truth of the matter, but I will say that is a great ride no matter how you cut it.
3. The Wraith (1986)
Charlie Sheen before he went all Looney Bin Jim on us and Sherilyn Fenn when she was in the height of sex symbol status. Weird enough, this does not help it. Not one actor even attempt to act. But it still doesn't mean this is a bad film because it is totally watchable and I guarantee you will have a good time. This film is chock full of cool car races and some good explosions and just some cool ass cars. Not to mention the aforementioned female actor doing a topless show which is a definite plus.
4. The Last Starfighter (1984)
And who said video games aren't productive? The gist of this is a guy from a trailer park gets chosen to save the galaxy against alien destruction by playing an arcade game. You will never see another film like this one until they remake this one, which I am sure Hollywood is thinking about already. This is one of the few first movies that decided to use strictly CGI for all the space scenes and there are alot of them. Considering it being in the beginning of CGI I would have to say it could get a pass but they truly are horrendous. Great story but bad everything else I hate to say, but the whole family will have a great time if you can overlook the effects.
5. Krull (1983)
This vehicle stars a whole bunch of people that most do not know with the exception of Liam Neeson and Hagrid, so why the hell not watch it for those reasons alone? Movie has some great stop motion animation and some pretty crappy makeup. The star of the film has some extremely terrible acting and he wears striped pants, and I have to say striped pants were never in in any decade. The film name is the planet it takes place on. The inhabitants of this planet get preyed upon by an alien in a flying castle like thing that teleports every day at dawn. Starting to sound really good at this point, eh? It gets better. It appears like medieval times but the bad guys henchmen have these staff like laser guns and they fight against men with swords. How's that for a tale?
6. Yor, The Hunter From The Future (1983)
I really don't know where to begin with this particular addition to my list. I love this movie but it really has no other redeeming factor other then it is amusing. And I have seen it maybe more times than I have seen Star Wars, which is saying something. Funniest thing about the SW reference is the fact that late in the film some ripoff Stormtroopers show up, albeit in black instead white. So a little bit to get your mind going for this one here, it's about a guy with a bad wig that doesn't know his past and he fights some plastic dinosaurs and some cavemen then finds a walkie talkie in a cave and meets some stormtroopers....Wow that sounds terrible now that I attempt to write it. Sounds even worse with me writing it. In it's defense though it is very fun and amusing if anything else.
7. Beastmaster (1982)
Alot of people the world over have seen the absolutely terrible television show and I have met so many people that never knew that it was based on an actual film. The film is actually a really good story just very badly executed. Marc Singer is the star and most will remember him from the being in the TV show but not as the Beastmaster. His character finds out he can speak to animals and he wants to avenge his village. He adopts a few choice animals and fights against some badass mothers in his journey and meets a few for his side as well, including a young and sexy Tanya Roberts who likes to swim naked. Some pretty cool witchcraft involved and some incredibly creepy vulture bird-like people that eat people...oddly. You could have a worse movie date I can tell you that much.
8. Slaughter High (1986)
I am gonna sell this right now so you will run out and attempt to find this for yourself. A guy is victimized in high school so badly that he plans some revenge on an anniversary and he puts on a court jester mask and kills them all. Yeah this was released during the huge 80's boom of slasher films the likes of Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees. While those two are iconic, this little unseen gem uses a jester mask. It is kinda creepy when it is revealed. Some of the most atrocious acting in the history of the medium but well worth checking out for horror fans...and comedy fans for that matter. The defenses I use for this are it has some incredible kill scenes that very few, if any, slasher films have used before it. Just be warned that all the actors are like 40 years old and they are playing early 20 somethings...it is ridiculously obvious.
9. Tron (1982)
This just may be the very first film to use CGI exclusively. I don't know for sure but if there was one before it then that must have been terrible. The story was years ahead of it's time and by that I mean computers weren't really a household item yet because of the size. Few people in the world had even heard of bites and ram before much less what they were for. Now it kinda makes sense considering the world of the computer we live in now but at the same time its ridiculous. So the quick and ugly to help you for an appetizer is a man that makes video games for a living has his games stolen and he hacks his way into the mainframe computer and the computer fights back by...bringing the human into the computer world and force him to fight for his life playing the games he created. One of the only movies ever named after a secondary character but it is entertaining to watch and see the beginning of these type of effects.
10. Barbarella (1968)
Barbarella! My only addition to this list (so far) that wasn't made in the 80's but rather in the late 60's. Yeah alot of cheesy films came out in the 50's and 60's but most of them were specifically made to be campy. I think this is one of them but when I was a kid in the 80's and first watched this the dolls scene stayed with me ever since. Weird thing about it is I had forgotten for a long time where I had seen that and it drove me nuts for years because of it. So I rewatched it as a teenager and that scene is still creepy as hell. Anyway, this is a space adventure starring Jane Fonda when she was in her absolute prime and she shows it alot throughout the film and really weird is the fact that it was rated PG when it was released. I think it may have been changed to R in recent years. IMDB still has it as PG but on Netflix it's an R so I don't know anymore. She plays the title role and she is a special agent sent to track down the evil scientist Duran Duran. And yes, without this movie we wouldn't have the 80's band of the same name. Just a fun ride all the way through but be warned it is the definition of cheese.
These are ten of my favorite but not very good films. I may still add to it as I remember some others but until then I think everyone should start with these. I do think there have been bad-good movies made in recent years too but there is something about just how bad they were able to make them back in the day. Just when you're watching these from my list here try not to hurt yourself with laughter all the way through! I do, on the other hand, want to hear about other people's favorites of bad films so don't be shy and let me know in the comments below.
I went into this expecting a complete travesty. Thankfully it wasn't complete. Surprisingly I enjoyed this film. The reason my expectations were so low was the past X-Men films. I don't know about you guys but I haven't forgiven Hollywood for X-Men:The Last Stand and X-Men Origins:Wolverine. Those two are continuously on the top of the worst comic book movie lists and for good reason. Last Stand was really only bad because of bad writing and way too many characters. I think that's why I thought this would suck. It really doesn't.
The acting is really well done throughout the entire film and I believe that is because there is alot of veteran actors and very few newbs. A couple of standouts are Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy. They both continue to impress with their skills. Jennifer Lawrence on the other hand thankfully isn't in it all that much because I just cannot stand her as an actress. I kinda wish they had Rebecca Romijn reprise her role as Mystique instead of the plank of wood they did.
The story is pretty good but it falls a bit short because of the continuity between this film and the others in the series. I mean if I had never seen any of the other X-Men movies this would have been spectacular but they haunt me every step of the way. I have a few questions for it. How did Professor Xavier get his body back? I mean it does take place after the events of Last Stand, so I ask again, how did he get his body back? Another one is how is Quicksilver as old as he is when he is Magneto's kid? Or did the producers decide that noone will remember that?
Film was good but still had some space to grow in my opinion. Anyone who likes comic movies should definitely check it out because it is very entertaining. The climax to me was done a little wrong and you will know what I mean when you watch it. I did however like how they righted some wrongs from previous installment, but you have to wait til the very end to know about that. In the 7 X-Men related films Wolverine wasn't the star of just one and that's my favorite one, although he does make a quick appearance. I would like more films not revolving around Wolverine. I know the character is their cash cow but he wasn't even part of the beginning of X-Men so why are there 6 films revolving around him?
300 was better in my opinion. I don't really have much to say about this film. To me, it just feels as if they made this because they know millions of people the world over loved the first one and they could make a quick buck off a sequel. I'm sure they made a ton of money too but that does not mean it is a great film in the least.
On the good side I can say that I like the way the film looks, which is exactly the same as the first one. The pausing of time and the slow motion makes it look kinda cool but also stretches out the length and without it would lose about a half hour of the total length. And that means that the movie isn't very long at all.
For the most part we do get to see most of the characters from the original but also it is more like only a cameo. Gerard Butler, who played the lead in the first and had a slew of memorable lines, is in it for about 5 minutes, if that. Lena Headey, who played his wife is in for about 10 minutes. The lead roles are given to Eva Green and Sullivan Stapleton. The acting is decent if maybe a bit too masculine at times but that's the way the first one was as well. Eva Green is very good on the eyes no matter what she is and she can act too but Sullivan Stapleton is the lead role and when compared to Butler's awesome part one role this guy falls flat. He did not impress me in the least.
The story is not a sequel, nor is it a prequel but it takes place before, during and after. So, I don't really know what that classifies it as. I can't really put my finger on it but it would seem that the battle from the first and the first battle in this take place at the same time. And why did the writers do that? It makes no sense that the first movie a group of 300 went against 1 million when it could have been alot more. Even the weak excuse they used in the film it still makes no sense to me. I guess the quick and easy way I should have said it was I think they never should have made it.
