I didn't know anything about this movie but watched it last night with my older brother. Shit was intense. And despite not being a horror movie was probably the scariest movie I've seen in a while, from the bodies in the walls, the bodies hanging from overpasses, the scene with Jon Bernthal, and the night vision scene my heart was pumping.
Just watched A Monster Calls. As someone who lost his mother to cancer at a young age, this movie was a continual kick in the nuts...but in a good way. Good movie, well acted, art and animation excellent
I'm a sucker for Fantasy and I particularly appreciate Arthurian mythology. So I had to give this one a chance, even though I knew it was a box-office bomb. Guy Ritchie has had more downs than ups lately but I always give him the benefit of the doubt. I was not offended by the revisionist theme of the movie and I liked Ritchie's touch. But it felt like the movie was trying too hard to throw the viewer into confusion with storytelling tricks. The fast-paced images à-la-Snatch are most welcome but the constant flashbacks and alternate explanations make the movie overcomplicated.
The original take on Arthur's origin story is compelling but lacked cohesion. Reminded me too much of all other super-hero origin story out there. Tragic loss, hard upbringing and finally, the revelation. The legendary deed of pulling the sword from the rock seemed rushed and overlooked. It looks like the director was far more interested in the power of Excalibur itself, especially when wielded with both hands...
I though the action scenes were pretty well done. The Excalibur fight scenes reminded me of 300, the way slow-mo and normal time were intertwined. I don't watch a lot of recent movies so I might not be able to put it in context. It did the trick for me: it entertained me more than the story itself. I understand why the movie bombed. It is too artistically driven to make the action scenes stand out.
I hear Ritchie wants to use it to drive a 6-movies arc about Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. I'm sure the result would be enjoyable but it would not be profitable. As a stand-alone, I found the movie to be entertaining. The lead actor was potent but not remarkable. I did not know him at all, my first impression of him was good. Jude Law was his useful self as Vortigern: he stole ever scene he appeared in. Of course, we have seen his character before in a much more successful movie but no matter: it worked here.
I don't know if I would recommend this movie to a casual audience. One thing's for sure, it's not spectacular enough for superhero fans. Unfortunately, it is not crafted for more specific audiences either. Too action-driven for fantasy fans, too lax for Arthurian buffs and too loose for movie buffs. I think the only people who will really appreciate this movie are Guy Ritchie's fans. I personally liked it but I really don't watch a lot of recent movies: I got this one because of the Arthurian theme and Guy Ritchie, of which I'm (still) a fan.
The experience was enjoyable but not remarkable. No big problems with the script, the actors or the direction. It just doesn't seem to fit the current mood. Give it a chance but don't raise your expectations...
The only thing I really liked about it was Phillip Ng did a pretty good job of mimicking Bruce Lee's speech and mannerisms.
Things I didn't like about this movie:
Bruce Lee was a dick. He was basically the villain for three/fourths of the movie.
Wong Jack Man was portrayed as a Shaolin Monk when he was not.
Wong Jack Man was portrayed as the true victor of his fight with Lee when supposedly real life eye witness accounts indicated a very different outcome.
The whole Steve McKee character and his west side story was fake.
Lilo and Stitch. Never seent it til a few weeks ago. 100% enjoyable and I laughed heartily at times. I give it 5 corn cobs out of a possible 5 corn cobs. I actually said it's a good movie for a pick me up. Good times.
I'm a sucker for Fantasy and I particularly appreciate Arthurian mythology. So I had to give this one a chance, even though I knew it was a box-office bomb. Guy Ritchie has had more downs than ups lately but I always give him the benefit of the doubt. I was not offended by the revisionist theme of the movie and I liked Ritchie's touch. But it felt like the movie was trying too hard to throw the viewer into confusion with storytelling tricks. The fast-paced images à-la-Snatch are most welcome but the constant flashbacks and alternate explanations make the movie overcomplicated.
The original take on Arthur's origin story is compelling but lacked cohesion. Reminded me too much of all other super-hero origin story out there. Tragic loss, hard upbringing and finally, the revelation. The legendary deed of pulling the sword from the rock seemed rushed and overlooked. It looks like the director was far more interested in the power of Excalibur itself, especially when wielded with both hands...
I though the action scenes were pretty well done. The Excalibur fight scenes reminded me of 300, the way slow-mo and normal time were intertwined. I don't watch a lot of recent movies so I might not be able to put it in context. It did the trick for me: it entertained me more than the story itself. I understand why the movie bombed. It is too artistically driven to make the action scenes stand out.
I hear Ritchie wants to use it to drive a 6-movies arc about Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. I'm sure the result would be enjoyable but it would not be profitable. As a stand-alone, I found the movie to be entertaining. The lead actor was potent but not remarkable. I did not know him at all, my first impression of him was good. Jude Law was his useful self as Vortigern: he stole ever scene he appeared in. Of course, we have seen his character before in a much more successful movie but no matter: it worked here.
I don't know if I would recommend this movie to a casual audience. One thing's for sure, it's not spectacular enough for superhero fans. Unfortunately, it is not crafted for more specific audiences either. Too action-driven for fantasy fans, too lax for Arthurian buffs and too loose for movie buffs. I think the only people who will really appreciate this movie are Guy Ritchie's fans. I personally liked it but I really don't watch a lot of recent movies: I got this one because of the Arthurian theme and Guy Ritchie, of which I'm (still) a fan.
The experience was enjoyable but not remarkable. No big problems with the script, the actors or the direction. It just doesn't seem to fit the current mood. Give it a chance but don't raise your expectations...
The poor english bastard who played Arthur in that film has been playing American characters for so long they had to bring a dialogue coach in to re-teach him how to speak with an english accent
The poor english bastard who played Arthur in that film has been playing American characters for so long they had to bring a dialogue coach in to re-teach him how to speak with an english accent
Terminator 2 Judgment Day 3D - 10/10 - Seeing this on the big screen was magical to the point of having tears in my eyes. The theater surround sound was amazing too. The 3D was pretty good overall and excellent in some parts. Other parts it could have been better. But holy shit they don't make movies like they used to. I desperately want to see this again in theaters but it's 250 miles away. Why the fuck didn't they release this in Cinemark theaters as well?
Lilo and Stitch. Never seent it til a few weeks ago. 100% enjoyable and I laughed heartily at times. I give it 5 corn cobs out of a possible 5 corn cobs. I actually said it's a good movie for a pick me up. Good times.
I tried to watch it. Couldn't be bothered to finish it. One hour in, I didn't care whether any characters survived, whether any of them were good or bad, and who ended up with the Apple of Anguish. No reason to continue at that point, as the movie had failed.
A cast of excellent actors managed to make their scenes seem better than they actually were, when they actually had the chance to do anything other than flail around or give exposition.
I think we're way past being impressed by an extra-long version of the Sam Raimi Spiderman swinging through the city shot, and if that's almost all a movie is based on, well...
I guess 4.2 / 10 if were to pro-rate what I saw for the full running time.
Bottom Line: A pretty faithful adaptation of the classic Stephen King novel and that might be what's holding it back.
After traumatizing kids and adults in the 1990 miniseries, Pennywise the Clown is back to frighten a whole new generation of moviegoers in Andy Muschietti's It. Set in the late 1980s, a string of child disappearances have plagued the town of Derry, Maine. A group of kids, referring themselves as "The Losers Club," discover that an evil shapeshifting entity is responsible for the mysterious deaths in the town dating back for centuries.
It opens with a tragic and horrifying scene in which six year old Georgie meets Pennywise inside a street gutter. The rest of the film fails to achieve the same devastation of the exceptional intro because of the plot armor given to its main characters. Jump scares aside, most of the individual haunting for the Losers - in which Pennywise manifest itself in what the kid fears the most - are pretty ho-hum. The only remarkable frightening manifestation was the distorted woman painting come to life.
The film does a good job of alienating the kids from the rest of the world as the adults are often depicted unfavorably, whether it be a lecherous pharmacist, an overbearing mother, or a predatory father.
The Losers are a mixed bag. Half of them are just defined by their quirks and characteristics (hypochondriac, germophobe, etc.) and not much else. Richie (Stranger Things' Finn Wolfhard) is the joker of the group but most of his lines aren't that memorable or funny. The notables among the group are Bill (Jaeden Lieberher), the leader of the group, Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), the endearing chubby kid, and Beverly (Sophia Lillis), the only female in the Club.
Similar to Stranger Things' Millie Bobby Brown, I feel Sophia Lillis is poised to become the breakout star of the film thanks to her wonderfully nuanced performance as Beverly, the only character that truly feels mutli-dimensional and complex. Beverly is a magnetic and tragic figure as not only does she have to deal with a demon clown trying to eat her, she has to contend with her burgeoning womanhood, nasty rumors about her being spread around town, mean girls at school, and a molesting dad.
And no, that infamous book scene is not in here.
The new Pennywise is played by Bill Skarsgard (brother of True Blood's Alexander and Viking's Gustaf - who is like the oldest looking 36-year-old man ever). Sporting a Victorian era clown get-up and a sinister buck-tooth smile, Bill did a superb job bringing the terrifying clown to life. But honestly, with the same make-up and prosthetic, any competent actor could pull off the role.
Muschietti evokes some pretty nightmarish visuals, particularly the gutter scene, the woman in the painting, and the room filled with clown dolls. But nothing elicits pure terror than Pennywise snarling with his fangs, claws extended and charging at you.
Maybe it's because I've read the book and I've seen the miniseries or maybe this type of horror plot has been copied and rehashed with different variations so many times over the decades, It's story doesn't feel fresh. Again jump scares aside, it's not as bone-chillingly frightening as I would have hoped. Though this would pissed off Stephen King's fans, a few alterations would have greatly improved the story for me (see spoiler box below).
A solid effort by the new film but for the best It horror film out there, It Follows is still king.
Rating:7/10
The film fails to achieve the same impact as the magnificent intro because none of the Losers die. Sure they're constantly tormented and almost killed but for the stakes and gravity of the situation to truly feel real, one or two of the Losers should have died.
Think Freddy Krueger. If he shows up in a person's dream, that person is likely going to die. So every time Freddy appears, there's always that terror and uncertainty if this character will survive or not. In It, Pennywise haunts the main kids but nothing happens and he just lets them go.
I want Amy Adams to play the grown-up version of Beverly.
I'm a sucker for Fantasy and I particularly appreciate Arthurian mythology. So I had to give this one a chance, even though I knew it was a box-office bomb. Guy Ritchie has had more downs than ups lately but I always give him the benefit of the doubt. I was not offended by the revisionist theme of the movie and I liked Ritchie's touch. But it felt like the movie was trying too hard to throw the viewer into confusion with storytelling tricks. The fast-paced images à-la-Snatch are most welcome but the constant flashbacks and alternate explanations make the movie overcomplicated.
The original take on Arthur's origin story is compelling but lacked cohesion. Reminded me too much of all other super-hero origin story out there. Tragic loss, hard upbringing and finally, the revelation. The legendary deed of pulling the sword from the rock seemed rushed and overlooked. It looks like the director was far more interested in the power of Excalibur itself, especially when wielded with both hands...
I though the action scenes were pretty well done. The Excalibur fight scenes reminded me of 300, the way slow-mo and normal time were intertwined. I don't watch a lot of recent movies so I might not be able to put it in context. It did the trick for me: it entertained me more than the story itself. I understand why the movie bombed. It is too artistically driven to make the action scenes stand out.
I hear Ritchie wants to use it to drive a 6-movies arc about Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. I'm sure the result would be enjoyable but it would not be profitable. As a stand-alone, I found the movie to be entertaining. The lead actor was potent but not remarkable. I did not know him at all, my first impression of him was good. Jude Law was his useful self as Vortigern: he stole ever scene he appeared in. Of course, we have seen his character before in a much more successful movie but no matter: it worked here.
I don't know if I would recommend this movie to a casual audience. One thing's for sure, it's not spectacular enough for superhero fans. Unfortunately, it is not crafted for more specific audiences either. Too action-driven for fantasy fans, too lax for Arthurian buffs and too loose for movie buffs. I think the only people who will really appreciate this movie are Guy Ritchie's fans. I personally liked it but I really don't watch a lot of recent movies: I got this one because of the Arthurian theme and Guy Ritchie, of which I'm (still) a fan.
The experience was enjoyable but not remarkable. No big problems with the script, the actors or the direction. It just doesn't seem to fit the current mood. Give it a chance but don't raise your expectations...
Very good. Much better and creepier than tv version. A few very unnerving scenes. A bit of light hearted comedy to lighten up the mood. Solid acting from all.
I'd say this is my favourite movie thus far. Well between this and wonder woman.
Took my 6 yr old daughter to see The Goonies at a special showing last night. The movie was even better than I remember. My poor kid was not ready for Sloth and it was a bit traumatic for her. Kid is soft
I don't remember it well but I recall it was a kind of re-interpretation. I had fun watching it but I've seen it only once: I always rewatch movies I like. I have seen Excalibur a thousand times! This one is something like Romeo + Juliet except it's not contemporary. It's set in ancient times but the characters act like Snatch villains. There's a lot of British humor that can pass over the head of casual viewers.
I'd say it's entertaining because of the way it's treated by Guy Ritchie. Another Excalibur would have been pointless, it's an all-time classic that cannot be topped. I say, take a chance and see how it goes. I was not disappointed because I set my expectations low: it went beyond.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
