Login
Home
189 Lists
2425 Reviews
CollectionsSomehow manages to be funnier than the first!
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 07:23
(A review of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)I really liked the first movie, and I think I like this one more. It's certainly both darker and funnier than the first. This time though, Ron gets the most laughs("OK can we panic now?"). Here we get introduced to new characters, the standout being Kenneth Branagh, a Shakespeare veteran, who stole every scene as Gildaroy Lockhart. I loved it when he said "It's filthy down here," the whole cinema were in hysterics at that. Jason Isaacs was menacing too, and Dobby was hilarious with his constant head-banging. Daniel Radcliffe is audibly older here and it does work at its advantage. I thought 23 year old Christian Coulson as Riddle was very good indeed, though Riddle was much scarier in the book. Other scenes of comic relief were provided by Ron's parents, played respectably by Julie Walters and Mark Williams. However, there were still some frightening scenes, and the plot at times seemed to be convoluted. Richard Harris was surprisingly good, considering he was ailing quite visibly, and some months later he sadly died. This movie is fairly faithful to the source material, and manages to have a bit of humour too. All in all, a dark and funny movie. 8/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Great fun!
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 07:20
(A review of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001))I really liked this film, but I much prefer the book, which has a lot more magic and wonder. Daniel Radcliffe is very likable as Harry, and he is given solid support by a funny Rupert Grint and a good Emma Watson, though she was annoying at times. The scene stealer was definitely Robbie Coltrane; I actually can't imagine anyone else playing Hagrid, Coltrane was just hilarious. Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith were also great, but for me the standout was the late Richard Harris. Now I much prefer Harris's interpretation of Dumbledore. He was soft-spoken, and actually fitted the part better. Both of these qualities were lost in the interpretation that Michael Gambon gave. I am not saying that Michael Gambon was bad, he just wasn't my ideal choice for Harris's replacement. The film is fairly faithful to its source material, and looks very beautiful. However, it is a bit long, and very young children may find Voldemort too frightening. I know because I have triplet brother and sisters who saw it, and couldn't sleep for about a month after viewing. In conclusion, a very good film, well performed and quite dark. 8/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Super Mario Bros. review
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 07:17
(A review of Super Mario Bros.)The Super Mario Brothers games are still great fun. Admittedly they are light on plot, almost simplistic, but they are imaginative, lots of fun and thrilling with memorable characters and interaction.
'Super Mario Bros' did have a good deal of potential, with talented actors like Bob Hoskins, Fiona Shaw, Samantha Mathis and Dennis Hopper on board, and it was always going to be interesting to see whether the film would be able to make an interesting story that didn't have a huge amount of narrative material to work from. Unfortunately, it is a real let down, and was doomed from the start from trying to do too much and from its notoriously troubled behind-the-scenes.
Video game/interactive film adaptations have a very dubious record, always giving a sense that video/interactive games don't translate well to film, and 'Super Mario Bros' is not an exception. This said, in general there are far worse films out there, while it misses more than it hits 'Super Mario Bros' has a few good spots. Some of the photography is good. Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo do their best in the lead roles and both do a more than respectable job especially Hoskins. Their chemistry and rapport is enjoyable if at times rather too father and son than brothers. Alan Silvestri's score while in want of more recognisable themes for fans is well-suited for the film and has a nice rousing energy, atmosphere and whimsy. Good song choices too.
However, 'Super Mario Bros' has several problems that stop it from being the thrill ride it could have been. The rest of the cast don't really impress that much. Dennis Hopper is always a great pleasure in over-the-top roles, particularly villain ones and when he loses it, and on paper he did seem an ideal choice. The thing is though with a role like Frank Booth in 'Blue Velvet', Hopper was not only over-the-top but also terrifying and the character was interesting, here in 'Super Mario Bros' as King Koopa Hopper is a large piece of unsubtle ham and that's it and there are some points where he's almost subdued, sometimes you expect Hopper to lose his rag and it doesn't really happen. His dialogue also further dumbs down the character, making King Koopa very much a missed opportunity as a villain. Samantha Mathis has some moments of heart and charm but is pretty bland on the whole, while Fiona Shaw at times comes close to out-hamming Hopper. The Goombas are sometimes sort of fun, but sometimes pointless and too goofy.
It is a shame really that the film's production troubles come through loud and clear in the film itself. The direction has a very inexperienced and erratic feel, and like the directors had no idea what to do with the film. The same is with the story, granted credit is due for trying to do something with source material that doesn't give them an awful lot to work with and it's very energetic in pace and never dull. Unfortunately, there is the sense that the writers didn't know which direction to go or how to start, with target demographic/audience and what it wanted to be never really clear (despite also being a bad film with many huge problems, 'Street Fighter' at least got that right). 'Super Mario Bros' constantly feels rushed, bloated, over-complicated and like there was too much going on, and further sadly not all of it was necessary or made sense as a result of not being explored enough. Exposition is also garbled, so that it has nothing to do with the games other than a few clumsily inserted references which reeked of trying to squeeze them in when this fact was realised in production.
As well as lacking in thrills, as a result of the over-crowded and over-complicated story, there is a lack of fun and imagination. The jokes are too juvenile and too embarrassingly awkward to be any fun, and only succeeds in dumbing down so many of the characters (a huge part as to why King Koopa is lacking as a villain). In fact, the script generally was poor, with childish and sometimes misplaced humour and dialogue that clunks badly. Action is very jagged and stop-start. Apart from in the photography and in a couple of neat effects, the expensive for back then budget is not hugely obvious in the production values, where interference and production troubles are second most obvious after the story. The sets are cluttered, too small in scale and quite drab and lacking in colour or dazzle, the world is never fully immersed and others have said it looks like a cheaper and dumbed down 'Blade Runner' which this reviewer agrees with. A lot of the effects are slapdash even for the early pre-'Jurassic Park' 90s.
Overall, has some good assets but, while it is not as horrendous as the universal critical and commercial failure on release and as its reputation suggests, too much of it is lacking for it to be the thrill-ride it had the potential of being with the right execution. 4/10 Bethany Cox
'Super Mario Bros' did have a good deal of potential, with talented actors like Bob Hoskins, Fiona Shaw, Samantha Mathis and Dennis Hopper on board, and it was always going to be interesting to see whether the film would be able to make an interesting story that didn't have a huge amount of narrative material to work from. Unfortunately, it is a real let down, and was doomed from the start from trying to do too much and from its notoriously troubled behind-the-scenes.
Video game/interactive film adaptations have a very dubious record, always giving a sense that video/interactive games don't translate well to film, and 'Super Mario Bros' is not an exception. This said, in general there are far worse films out there, while it misses more than it hits 'Super Mario Bros' has a few good spots. Some of the photography is good. Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo do their best in the lead roles and both do a more than respectable job especially Hoskins. Their chemistry and rapport is enjoyable if at times rather too father and son than brothers. Alan Silvestri's score while in want of more recognisable themes for fans is well-suited for the film and has a nice rousing energy, atmosphere and whimsy. Good song choices too.
However, 'Super Mario Bros' has several problems that stop it from being the thrill ride it could have been. The rest of the cast don't really impress that much. Dennis Hopper is always a great pleasure in over-the-top roles, particularly villain ones and when he loses it, and on paper he did seem an ideal choice. The thing is though with a role like Frank Booth in 'Blue Velvet', Hopper was not only over-the-top but also terrifying and the character was interesting, here in 'Super Mario Bros' as King Koopa Hopper is a large piece of unsubtle ham and that's it and there are some points where he's almost subdued, sometimes you expect Hopper to lose his rag and it doesn't really happen. His dialogue also further dumbs down the character, making King Koopa very much a missed opportunity as a villain. Samantha Mathis has some moments of heart and charm but is pretty bland on the whole, while Fiona Shaw at times comes close to out-hamming Hopper. The Goombas are sometimes sort of fun, but sometimes pointless and too goofy.
It is a shame really that the film's production troubles come through loud and clear in the film itself. The direction has a very inexperienced and erratic feel, and like the directors had no idea what to do with the film. The same is with the story, granted credit is due for trying to do something with source material that doesn't give them an awful lot to work with and it's very energetic in pace and never dull. Unfortunately, there is the sense that the writers didn't know which direction to go or how to start, with target demographic/audience and what it wanted to be never really clear (despite also being a bad film with many huge problems, 'Street Fighter' at least got that right). 'Super Mario Bros' constantly feels rushed, bloated, over-complicated and like there was too much going on, and further sadly not all of it was necessary or made sense as a result of not being explored enough. Exposition is also garbled, so that it has nothing to do with the games other than a few clumsily inserted references which reeked of trying to squeeze them in when this fact was realised in production.
As well as lacking in thrills, as a result of the over-crowded and over-complicated story, there is a lack of fun and imagination. The jokes are too juvenile and too embarrassingly awkward to be any fun, and only succeeds in dumbing down so many of the characters (a huge part as to why King Koopa is lacking as a villain). In fact, the script generally was poor, with childish and sometimes misplaced humour and dialogue that clunks badly. Action is very jagged and stop-start. Apart from in the photography and in a couple of neat effects, the expensive for back then budget is not hugely obvious in the production values, where interference and production troubles are second most obvious after the story. The sets are cluttered, too small in scale and quite drab and lacking in colour or dazzle, the world is never fully immersed and others have said it looks like a cheaper and dumbed down 'Blade Runner' which this reviewer agrees with. A lot of the effects are slapdash even for the early pre-'Jurassic Park' 90s.
Overall, has some good assets but, while it is not as horrendous as the universal critical and commercial failure on release and as its reputation suggests, too much of it is lacking for it to be the thrill-ride it had the potential of being with the right execution. 4/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Completely bloodless
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 07:10
(A review of BloodRayne)Saw 'Bloodrayne' and its two sequels out of curiosity to see if they were as bad as their terrible reputation. As well as seeing whether one of the worst directors of all time Uwe Boll was capable of making a good film. On top of that, like Ben Kingsley a lot as an actor and he is reason enough to see anything he's involved in. Did not have my hopes up, because even looking at the advertising and trailers 'Bloodrayne' looked awful.
The terrible reputation and dubious advertising do not lie. 'Bloodrayne' to me and many others really is that bad, bad actually is an understatement. Have come to the conclusion that Boll is incapable of making a halfway decent film, have not seen everything of his but all that has been seen has been terrible and as bad as their reputation. As someone who is usually very generous rating and reviewing films, 'Bloodrayne' does stand out as one of the worst films seen recently and actually full stop. Everything is abysmally executed and there are no redeeming qualities at all, have said that about very few films seen recently.
'Bloodrayne' couldn't be more inept visually. Photography that is both chaotic and static, bacon-slicer-like editing, drab costumes that don't fit the setting, continuity errors galore (more than anybody can count), afterthought-like visual effects, lighting completely lacking in atmosphere, those can all be found. The music sounds cheap and is never dynamic with anything on screen, often working against it and like it belonged in another film entirely.
Writing is horrendously stilted and cheesy, enough to make one want to vomit and the unintentional camp later on becomes exhausting. The action has no momentum or excitement whatsoever, is chaotically edited, under-rehearsed choreographically and a lot of it is incomprehensible. It really takes ineptitude to a whole new level. As is the story, it never comes to life and is not easy to follow often. Boll's direction is typically non-existent and cold, comparing him to Ed Wood is rather insulting when although Wood's films were the complete opposite of fine heart one could see that he had his heart in the right place (something that has never been the case with Boll). The characters are walking cliches that are neither interesting or worth rooting for, instead bland and irritating.
You know something is wrong when the best performance comes from an angry-looking Michelle Rodriguez. Elsewhere there is an emotionless lead, Meat Loaf's uncomfortable cameo and Michael Madsen and Billy Zane going through the motions. Worst of it is Kingsley in his worst ever performance, taking hamminess and chewing-scenery-to-pieces to mind-boggling extremes.
Summarising, completely bloodless and appallingly awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox
The terrible reputation and dubious advertising do not lie. 'Bloodrayne' to me and many others really is that bad, bad actually is an understatement. Have come to the conclusion that Boll is incapable of making a halfway decent film, have not seen everything of his but all that has been seen has been terrible and as bad as their reputation. As someone who is usually very generous rating and reviewing films, 'Bloodrayne' does stand out as one of the worst films seen recently and actually full stop. Everything is abysmally executed and there are no redeeming qualities at all, have said that about very few films seen recently.
'Bloodrayne' couldn't be more inept visually. Photography that is both chaotic and static, bacon-slicer-like editing, drab costumes that don't fit the setting, continuity errors galore (more than anybody can count), afterthought-like visual effects, lighting completely lacking in atmosphere, those can all be found. The music sounds cheap and is never dynamic with anything on screen, often working against it and like it belonged in another film entirely.
Writing is horrendously stilted and cheesy, enough to make one want to vomit and the unintentional camp later on becomes exhausting. The action has no momentum or excitement whatsoever, is chaotically edited, under-rehearsed choreographically and a lot of it is incomprehensible. It really takes ineptitude to a whole new level. As is the story, it never comes to life and is not easy to follow often. Boll's direction is typically non-existent and cold, comparing him to Ed Wood is rather insulting when although Wood's films were the complete opposite of fine heart one could see that he had his heart in the right place (something that has never been the case with Boll). The characters are walking cliches that are neither interesting or worth rooting for, instead bland and irritating.
You know something is wrong when the best performance comes from an angry-looking Michelle Rodriguez. Elsewhere there is an emotionless lead, Meat Loaf's uncomfortable cameo and Michael Madsen and Billy Zane going through the motions. Worst of it is Kingsley in his worst ever performance, taking hamminess and chewing-scenery-to-pieces to mind-boggling extremes.
Summarising, completely bloodless and appallingly awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
20 years later...and worth the wait
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 07:04
(A review of Halloween H20: 20 Years Later)John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. The exception however is 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later'. It's not perfect and nowhere near as great as the original, but it's the only sequel that's above average, let alone good and by far the best since the original. It does a great job breathing fresh life into a series that had gotten stale as quick as one can down a can of coke gone flat and such a welcome addition after the badness of the fifth and sixth films.
'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' has its flaws. It is too short and at times erratically paced, sometimes rushed and then taking a bit of time to get going after the opening. There is not enough breathing room for development of characterisation, which generally is shallow apart from the central relationship and the script tends to be weak (not unexpected, though actually it's far worse in the previous sequels, at least it sounds complete).
On the other hand, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' is the best-looking of the sequels, the first half in particular being close in style to the autumnal look of the original, something that none of the previous sequels did. The editing is coherent, it's not shot too darkly and there is an eeriness to the setting which can be properly appreciated as a result. The music is a welcome return to being an asset than a drawback like in the previous two sequels. While not quite a character of its own like in the original, it adds to the atmosphere and enhances it.
Luckily there's nowhere near as much unintentional camp, out of place humour or bizarre subplots or idea that muddle the story. Instead much of the film is fun and there is a tension, creepiness and suspense, even poignancy at times, that the previous sequels were sorely lacking in. The deaths are the most creative and shocking since those in the original, while the opening scene is unsettlingly tense and the ending is creepy and touching. The central relationship is handled quite well.
Although the characters are underdeveloped, none of them are annoying and they do have enough personality to stop them from being too dull. The direction is in control of the material and is at least competent and often well above that, especially in the second half when the film really does come alive. Of the sequels, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' is by quite some way the best acted, Jamie Lee Curtis' wonderful performance being the film's best asset.
In summary, the best of the sequels/follow ups and worth the wait. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. The exception however is 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later'. It's not perfect and nowhere near as great as the original, but it's the only sequel that's above average, let alone good and by far the best since the original. It does a great job breathing fresh life into a series that had gotten stale as quick as one can down a can of coke gone flat and such a welcome addition after the badness of the fifth and sixth films.
'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' has its flaws. It is too short and at times erratically paced, sometimes rushed and then taking a bit of time to get going after the opening. There is not enough breathing room for development of characterisation, which generally is shallow apart from the central relationship and the script tends to be weak (not unexpected, though actually it's far worse in the previous sequels, at least it sounds complete).
On the other hand, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' is the best-looking of the sequels, the first half in particular being close in style to the autumnal look of the original, something that none of the previous sequels did. The editing is coherent, it's not shot too darkly and there is an eeriness to the setting which can be properly appreciated as a result. The music is a welcome return to being an asset than a drawback like in the previous two sequels. While not quite a character of its own like in the original, it adds to the atmosphere and enhances it.
Luckily there's nowhere near as much unintentional camp, out of place humour or bizarre subplots or idea that muddle the story. Instead much of the film is fun and there is a tension, creepiness and suspense, even poignancy at times, that the previous sequels were sorely lacking in. The deaths are the most creative and shocking since those in the original, while the opening scene is unsettlingly tense and the ending is creepy and touching. The central relationship is handled quite well.
Although the characters are underdeveloped, none of them are annoying and they do have enough personality to stop them from being too dull. The direction is in control of the material and is at least competent and often well above that, especially in the second half when the film really does come alive. Of the sequels, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' is by quite some way the best acted, Jamie Lee Curtis' wonderful performance being the film's best asset.
In summary, the best of the sequels/follow ups and worth the wait. 7/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
No terror, fear or thrills to this curse
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 06:58
(A review of Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers)John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' is a prime example of this, a film with very little to recommend and just very poorly done in many areas.
Starting with the very few good things, Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasance, in his last film before his death from heart failure not long after (although his screen time is far too short and was clearly severely truncated), come off in a good way in the acting department.
The exploding head death is a pretty fun one and the setting is eerie. As far as praises go, that is it.
'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' was directed by someone who had an apparent dislike for Pleasance, the main reason for his limited screen time most likely, and had no interest in directing the film or the 'Halloween' series in general, and it shows loud and clear on screen. Even the direction in 'Season of the Witch' and 'Halloween 5' wasn't this indifferent or inept.
Sadly the effectiveness of the setting, which actually is eerie, is hindered by the filming and editing being pretty amateurish, the photography often is far too dark and drab and the editing makes bacon-slicer-like editing seem coherent in comparison. The music, like the previous film, is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the first four films. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
Everything looks, sounds and feels like it was made in a rush and with absolutely no heart, accounting for the constant sense of incompleteness. There is nothing scary or suspenseful, it's unintentionally campy, uncomfortably strange and by the numbers with a convoluted story that makes no sense whatsoever, an abrupt ending, dull pacing and the man in black/cult plot that is just bizarre and just muddles everything. Michael Myers is just not creepy enough and looks goofy.
Very like the previous sequel, there is nothing interesting or endearing about the characters (though none are quite as annoying as Tina in 'Halloween 5'). The script especially sounds incomplete and the acting, apart from Rudd and Pleasance (whose screen time, as said, is far too short), is subpar to put it lightly. J.C. Brandy is a pretty poor replacement for Danielle Harris.
Overall, don't expect any terror, scares, fear or thrills here, you'll be disappointed. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' is a prime example of this, a film with very little to recommend and just very poorly done in many areas.
Starting with the very few good things, Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasance, in his last film before his death from heart failure not long after (although his screen time is far too short and was clearly severely truncated), come off in a good way in the acting department.
The exploding head death is a pretty fun one and the setting is eerie. As far as praises go, that is it.
'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' was directed by someone who had an apparent dislike for Pleasance, the main reason for his limited screen time most likely, and had no interest in directing the film or the 'Halloween' series in general, and it shows loud and clear on screen. Even the direction in 'Season of the Witch' and 'Halloween 5' wasn't this indifferent or inept.
Sadly the effectiveness of the setting, which actually is eerie, is hindered by the filming and editing being pretty amateurish, the photography often is far too dark and drab and the editing makes bacon-slicer-like editing seem coherent in comparison. The music, like the previous film, is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the first four films. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
Everything looks, sounds and feels like it was made in a rush and with absolutely no heart, accounting for the constant sense of incompleteness. There is nothing scary or suspenseful, it's unintentionally campy, uncomfortably strange and by the numbers with a convoluted story that makes no sense whatsoever, an abrupt ending, dull pacing and the man in black/cult plot that is just bizarre and just muddles everything. Michael Myers is just not creepy enough and looks goofy.
Very like the previous sequel, there is nothing interesting or endearing about the characters (though none are quite as annoying as Tina in 'Halloween 5'). The script especially sounds incomplete and the acting, apart from Rudd and Pleasance (whose screen time, as said, is far too short), is subpar to put it lightly. J.C. Brandy is a pretty poor replacement for Danielle Harris.
Overall, don't expect any terror, scares, fear or thrills here, you'll be disappointed. 3/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A revenge that is neither scary or thrilling
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 06:54
(A review of Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers)John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. To me, and many others it seems, 'Halloween 5' is one of the worst of the series. Even with its attempt at a grittier tone, it is far from a thrill ride and there is very little scary about it, other than one scene and how poor quality the film is.
Danielle Harris and Don Shanks give strong performances, as does Ellie Cornell in the limited screen time she has. Donald Pleasance does his best and succeeds in creating an unnerving presence, but his character is now too much of a caricature which is at the writers' door not his.
There is one effective scene, that with the laundry chute which is actually pretty freaky. The setting has a haunting eeriness when it is not hindered by the low-budget-looking rushed-looking filming.
Sadly, most of the time it is with the editing being especially amateurish. The direction is also sloppy, especially in the dramatically inept non-horror scenes. The music is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the three previous sequels. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
'Halloween 5' is also seriously lacking in atmosphere and the darkness and grittiness doesn't come through enough because too much of the film is dull and descends into overly-silly camp. Again, 'Halloween 5' feels more of the same, the chilling scares, nail-biting suspense and the feeling of being unsettled. There is nothing creative or shocking about the scares or deaths, it's all by-the-numbers, over-familiar and indifferent. Everything is just too predictable and dull in pace to be remotely suspenseful.
Stupidity is also all over the film. So many moments are intelligence-insultingly ridiculous and almost illogical. The characters mostly are very bland and annoying, especially Tina. High quality of acting and dialogue is never to be expected in a 'Halloween' film, but both are especially bad here. The script is so last-minute sounding and not even half-baked and outside of the aforementioned the acting is terrible.
In summary, one of the worst of the series. Scary and thrilling are the two last words to describe this revenge. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. To me, and many others it seems, 'Halloween 5' is one of the worst of the series. Even with its attempt at a grittier tone, it is far from a thrill ride and there is very little scary about it, other than one scene and how poor quality the film is.
Danielle Harris and Don Shanks give strong performances, as does Ellie Cornell in the limited screen time she has. Donald Pleasance does his best and succeeds in creating an unnerving presence, but his character is now too much of a caricature which is at the writers' door not his.
There is one effective scene, that with the laundry chute which is actually pretty freaky. The setting has a haunting eeriness when it is not hindered by the low-budget-looking rushed-looking filming.
Sadly, most of the time it is with the editing being especially amateurish. The direction is also sloppy, especially in the dramatically inept non-horror scenes. The music is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the three previous sequels. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
'Halloween 5' is also seriously lacking in atmosphere and the darkness and grittiness doesn't come through enough because too much of the film is dull and descends into overly-silly camp. Again, 'Halloween 5' feels more of the same, the chilling scares, nail-biting suspense and the feeling of being unsettled. There is nothing creative or shocking about the scares or deaths, it's all by-the-numbers, over-familiar and indifferent. Everything is just too predictable and dull in pace to be remotely suspenseful.
Stupidity is also all over the film. So many moments are intelligence-insultingly ridiculous and almost illogical. The characters mostly are very bland and annoying, especially Tina. High quality of acting and dialogue is never to be expected in a 'Halloween' film, but both are especially bad here. The script is so last-minute sounding and not even half-baked and outside of the aforementioned the acting is terrible.
In summary, one of the worst of the series. Scary and thrilling are the two last words to describe this revenge. 3/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
The watchable return of Michael Myers
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 06:52
(A review of Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers)John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers' may still be no great shakes but actually is one of the better and more watchable 'Halloween' sequels, better than the previous two sequels and much better than most of the ones that were to follow.
Lets start with what is good first. Donald Pleasance and Danielle Harris are very good, particularly Pleasance, who is just as creepy and deranged as Michael Myers himself. Ellie Cornell is sweet without being too much so and doesn't overdo it too much.
A few of the deaths are unsettling, especially the first one, and the settings and the music score are suitably eerie. Things are taken more seriously than the previous two sequels and it's not as stupid or illogical while the characters are nowhere near as annoying as before. Praise is given for returning back to its roots somewhat and it feels more of a 'Halloween' film than 'Season of the Witch' which tried to do something different but failed.
However, 'Halloween 4' has its issues. Pleasance, Harris and Cornell aside, the acting really isn't worth mentioning, something that was expected but even by 'Halloween' sequel standards it was really terrible. The less said about the even worse script the better, was not expecting much from the dialogue in the first place but again by the sequel standards the cringe factor was high. The characters may not be as annoying here but they are incredibly dull.
Praise is to be given for returning back to its roots, as said, but like the second film it is too much of a bland retread with very little, if anything new, with scares, chills and suspense seriously lacking and most of the deaths having little imagination or the shock factor. The ending didn't feel that well rounded off, some of the film is sluggishly paced and directed (but not as inept as in 'Season of the Witch') and the cinematography on the most part is too dark.
In conclusion, watchable if no great shakes. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers' may still be no great shakes but actually is one of the better and more watchable 'Halloween' sequels, better than the previous two sequels and much better than most of the ones that were to follow.
Lets start with what is good first. Donald Pleasance and Danielle Harris are very good, particularly Pleasance, who is just as creepy and deranged as Michael Myers himself. Ellie Cornell is sweet without being too much so and doesn't overdo it too much.
A few of the deaths are unsettling, especially the first one, and the settings and the music score are suitably eerie. Things are taken more seriously than the previous two sequels and it's not as stupid or illogical while the characters are nowhere near as annoying as before. Praise is given for returning back to its roots somewhat and it feels more of a 'Halloween' film than 'Season of the Witch' which tried to do something different but failed.
However, 'Halloween 4' has its issues. Pleasance, Harris and Cornell aside, the acting really isn't worth mentioning, something that was expected but even by 'Halloween' sequel standards it was really terrible. The less said about the even worse script the better, was not expecting much from the dialogue in the first place but again by the sequel standards the cringe factor was high. The characters may not be as annoying here but they are incredibly dull.
Praise is to be given for returning back to its roots, as said, but like the second film it is too much of a bland retread with very little, if anything new, with scares, chills and suspense seriously lacking and most of the deaths having little imagination or the shock factor. The ending didn't feel that well rounded off, some of the film is sluggishly paced and directed (but not as inept as in 'Season of the Witch') and the cinematography on the most part is too dark.
In conclusion, watchable if no great shakes. 5/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A not so happy Halloween season
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 06:47
(A review of Halloween III: Season of the Witch)John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' had a generally negative critical reception and is still considered by many one of the worst of the series, but has garnered fans overtime. To me, 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' is not that awful, but it is not a particularly good film either.
It is often criticised for straying too far from the formula and not feeling at all like a 'Halloween' film. Actually these complaints are understandable, but a lot of people have also argued that there is much more wrong than just being unrecognisable as a 'Halloween' film. Actually, didn't mind at all that it tried to be different rather than being a retread like 'Halloween II' was, sadly it just didn't work out. Judging it as a standalone, 'Halloween III' also manages still to be problematic.
'Halloween III' is not a complete mess. It is one of the better-looking and more polished sequels and has a suitably eerie look. The music has a spine-chilling atmosphere and has a real eeriness. The song is similarly very catchy.
A couple of the deaths are disturbing and Dan O'Herlihy tries his best.
Like the previous film, the drawbacks are numerous and significant. There is more creepiness than with 'Halloween II', even if just sporadically, but tonally it still doesn't feel right. The weirdness of the story is overkill and parts are unintentionally funny. The science fiction elements feature excessively and confuse the storytelling, as well as because it is more silly than eerie it dumbs it down.
Once again there is very little scary or suspenseful. A couple of the deaths are more disturbing but most are not that creative or unsettling. The story was a decent idea that could have been creepy but was instead silly and with even more stupidity and illogic than the previous sequel.
Many have said that no awards will be given for good dialogue and acting. That's putting it lightly. The script is clunky and cheesy ineptitude throughout and the acting, Dan O'Herlihy excepted, is pretty awful and fails to do anything with such dull and annoying characters. The gore is gratuitous, the ending is a big head-scratcher and the non-horror scenes are ineptly directed (in a film where direction reeked of inexperience), written and acted.
In summation, mediocre and not so happy. Not quite as bad as reputed though. 4/10 Bethany Cox
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' had a generally negative critical reception and is still considered by many one of the worst of the series, but has garnered fans overtime. To me, 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' is not that awful, but it is not a particularly good film either.
It is often criticised for straying too far from the formula and not feeling at all like a 'Halloween' film. Actually these complaints are understandable, but a lot of people have also argued that there is much more wrong than just being unrecognisable as a 'Halloween' film. Actually, didn't mind at all that it tried to be different rather than being a retread like 'Halloween II' was, sadly it just didn't work out. Judging it as a standalone, 'Halloween III' also manages still to be problematic.
'Halloween III' is not a complete mess. It is one of the better-looking and more polished sequels and has a suitably eerie look. The music has a spine-chilling atmosphere and has a real eeriness. The song is similarly very catchy.
A couple of the deaths are disturbing and Dan O'Herlihy tries his best.
Like the previous film, the drawbacks are numerous and significant. There is more creepiness than with 'Halloween II', even if just sporadically, but tonally it still doesn't feel right. The weirdness of the story is overkill and parts are unintentionally funny. The science fiction elements feature excessively and confuse the storytelling, as well as because it is more silly than eerie it dumbs it down.
Once again there is very little scary or suspenseful. A couple of the deaths are more disturbing but most are not that creative or unsettling. The story was a decent idea that could have been creepy but was instead silly and with even more stupidity and illogic than the previous sequel.
Many have said that no awards will be given for good dialogue and acting. That's putting it lightly. The script is clunky and cheesy ineptitude throughout and the acting, Dan O'Herlihy excepted, is pretty awful and fails to do anything with such dull and annoying characters. The gore is gratuitous, the ending is a big head-scratcher and the non-horror scenes are ineptly directed (in a film where direction reeked of inexperience), written and acted.
In summation, mediocre and not so happy. Not quite as bad as reputed though. 4/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A mediocre Halloween
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2022 06:43
(A review of Halloween II)John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween II' is not the worst of them, or one of the worst of them. It is not really a good film, not by a long shot, but oddly enough it still manages to be one of the better 'Halloween' sequels and one of the few semi-watchable ones despite its glaring faults.
'Halloween II' has strengths. It is one of the better-looking and more polished sequels and has a suitably eerie look. The music has a spine-chilling atmosphere, if not as much as the first 'Halloween' and not as big a character of its own that the music in the original was.
Didn't care much for the acting generally, but both Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance make successfully game efforts and Michael Myers does evoke some creepiness.
There are also unfortunately some significant drawbacks. The biggest fault is that the atmosphere and tone are just wrong. The film just feels like a stale retread minus the chilling scares, nail-biting suspense and the feeling of being unsettled. There is nothing creative or shocking about the scares or deaths, it's all by-the-numbers, over-familiar and indifferent. Everything is just too predictable and dull in pace to be remotely suspenseful.
Stupidity is also all over the film. So many moments are intelligence-insultingly ridiculous and almost illogical, and the hospital setting would have been more effective if it wasn't so under-populated and drab (it actually didn't feel like a hospital at all). Didn't care for the direction either, there is no flair and very little engagement with the material, at times there is too much of an imitation of the direction of the first 'Halloween' but with no success.
Curtis and Pleasance aside, the acting is ropey and everybody has to work with a clunky script, with a stilted flow and a lot of unintentional laughs, and annoying characters (with the old characters being so dumbed down that they are no better).
Overall, mediocre but one of the semi-watchable sequels of the series. 4/10 Bethany Cox
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween II' is not the worst of them, or one of the worst of them. It is not really a good film, not by a long shot, but oddly enough it still manages to be one of the better 'Halloween' sequels and one of the few semi-watchable ones despite its glaring faults.
'Halloween II' has strengths. It is one of the better-looking and more polished sequels and has a suitably eerie look. The music has a spine-chilling atmosphere, if not as much as the first 'Halloween' and not as big a character of its own that the music in the original was.
Didn't care much for the acting generally, but both Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance make successfully game efforts and Michael Myers does evoke some creepiness.
There are also unfortunately some significant drawbacks. The biggest fault is that the atmosphere and tone are just wrong. The film just feels like a stale retread minus the chilling scares, nail-biting suspense and the feeling of being unsettled. There is nothing creative or shocking about the scares or deaths, it's all by-the-numbers, over-familiar and indifferent. Everything is just too predictable and dull in pace to be remotely suspenseful.
Stupidity is also all over the film. So many moments are intelligence-insultingly ridiculous and almost illogical, and the hospital setting would have been more effective if it wasn't so under-populated and drab (it actually didn't feel like a hospital at all). Didn't care for the direction either, there is no flair and very little engagement with the material, at times there is too much of an imitation of the direction of the first 'Halloween' but with no success.
Curtis and Pleasance aside, the acting is ropey and everybody has to work with a clunky script, with a stilted flow and a lot of unintentional laughs, and annoying characters (with the old characters being so dumbed down that they are no better).
Overall, mediocre but one of the semi-watchable sequels of the series. 4/10 Bethany Cox
0 comments, Reply to this entry