whitsbrain

VIP

6

It's probably not necessary to state that this is based on a 1926 H.P. Lovecraft story of the same name, but I guess I just did. I've never read the story. My only reference is a 1971 segment of Rod Serling's Night Gallery, an old anthology TV show.

I'm falling into a bit of a Horror rut and not just because, as I write this, it happens to be Halloween season. It's just that so little of what I watch claims to be scary, but isn't. I've probably just watched too much Horror over the years. This episode has a few jump scares which are uncharacteristically effective (because jump scares are shocking not scary), but doesn't come close to providing any sustained scares. At best, this offers an eerie atmosphere, which isn't always easy to pull off, either.

Ben Barnes, Crispin Glover, and Oriana Leman are good in the lead roles. The ending is extremely dark and I have no idea if it's true to the original Lovecraft story, and I guess it doesn't matter if it is. The look of this episode is stunning. The sets and architecture are beautiful.

Even though this episode was just okay, I am impressed by the production value, emphasis on direction and what I think has been some pretty solid acting throughout this series.

Scarlett Johansson is an alien that lures not-so-lucky men into a pool of black goo inside a house in Glasgow.

Yep. You read that right. And surprisingly, this was enough of a premise to keep me engaged throughout. This is a solid science fiction film with some totally stunning visuals. They are beautiful but bleak and impressive in scale. The camera often lingers for extended periods. At times it had me wondering if I had accidentally pressed the pause button on my remote.

If you are lover of movies that spend more time on the look than the dialogue, this is one for you. Quentin Tarantino fans need not apply. There aren't explanations for why Scarlett's alien is on Earth, how it got here, or what its goals are. That alone is going to piss a lot of viewers off. What won't help is the lack of details about the Scarlett alien's motorcycle-riding caretaker or about that strange goo pool and what dimension or place it exists in.

There is an absolutely devastating scene on a beach that was one of the more horrifying things I've seen in a film in a long time. And no, it's not a gory scene at all. You'll know what I mean when you see it.

There is a lot of nudity featured here, even the full-frontal variety. Scarlett Johansson bares all for lengthy stretches and there are a lot of naked dudes that appear happy to see Scarlett. If that bothers you, avoid this.

A lot of people will find this film confusing for its lack of dialogue and the shortage of explanations for the "What is that?" or "Why did that happen?" questions they will have. But there is nothing complex about the character arc of Scarlett's alien. The lack of a spoon fed ending won't help, either.

A prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 classic with the same name, this copycat turned out to be better than I thought it would be. It offered nothing too original except a smart Ripley-type character who was decent and likeable. The filmmakers managed to tie the ending of this story into the opening of Carpenter's original, which was an appropriate thing to do since they had branded it as a prequel as part of its marketing strategy. I really don't think I would want to see this movie be a part of some "The Thing" box set, though. It's totally unnecessary and is really nothing but a cash grab based on an earlier masterpiece. Yes, that's right. I called Carpenter's original a "masterpiece".

What surprises about this prequel is that it isn't a bad movie at all, that is until the final act. There's some decent suspense and some real tension generated. The classic blood test scene of the original was almost to the point of being copied, but they pulled back and developed a different way to tell alien from human. It's not as effective, but it does manage to turn up the suspense. And about that last act, it's awful. The characters get involved in a "hiding from the alien" scene that makes absolutely no sense given what we find out about them later. Even the alien behaves like an absolute idiot. I don't know why I'm trying not to spoil this, but perhaps it's because I wouldn't want a forehead slapping moment ruined for me, either.

No comments about a movie containing aliens would be complete without a word or two about the special effects, and in this movie, they weren't very good. Everything is CGI and it totally eliminated any potential scares. They weren't SyFy Channel cheap but were at times very nearly cartoonish. The alien was not scary and even the gore, which there was less of than I anticipated, was not convincing in the least. Seriously, what is it about special effects that allows me to accept how bad they are in '50s science fiction or horror but reject them when current films botch them. This version of "The Thing" didn't impress in that department.

"San Andreas" was just as big and stupid as I thought it would be. It reminded me of every other big disaster film of the last decade or so. You know, "The Day After Tomorrow", "2012", "Dante's Peak", that type of deal. But for as corny and predictable as this movie was, I was totally entertained.

Somehow, Dwayne Johnson's character was able to fly around in a rescue helicopter and actually save no one. Well, other than his wife and daughter. Anyone else caught along the entire crumbling California coast was toast, because Dwayne wasn't saving them. But then, who can blame him. He's married to Carla Gugino. I'd take the straightest line possible, too.

I found myself feeling a bit guilty for a moment or two about how much I was getting a charge out of the total carnage. Skyscrapers toppled, the ground split open and swallowed up whole suburbs and neighborhoods. And then to top if all off, look out for the Tsunami! Freighters and battleships were no match for Nature's wrath, as they were washed up over the Golden Gate bridge and into San Francisco, left hanging precariously from shattered buildings.

But Mother Nature herself was no match for The Rock. Anything in his way. Anything falling from above or falling out from under him was merely delaying his inevitable success in saving his family. It had me in stitches. I was laughing and shouting, "Hell Yeah, Dwayne!!!"

Well, this is a rarity. Hollywood shuns originality these days. It settles for established brands. The goal is low-risk high-reward. That makes for smart business but generic moviemaking. I suppose odds are with the occasional oddity, and that's what "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is.

I just finished watching all of the original "Planet of the Apes" series of movies. They are generally considered hit and miss in quality with the original "Planet..." being considered a classic, and it is. But...and I know this is sacrilegious, "Rise..." is a better movie than all of the original series' movies.

It's so well paced and the story, while definitely science fiction, seems plausible. James Franco is really good in this role. I didn't think he could pull off a scientist, but he does it well. He also pairs up nicely with John Lithgow, who plays his sick father.

The CGI apes are at times a wonder, primarily when interacting with humans. When they are together in packs or communicating without human interaction, the effects seem a little cartoony. Then again, the final showdown between the San Francisco Police and the rampaging apes is pretty amazing and is super entertaining. I especially liked watching the powerful gorilla, I think his name is "Buck". He steals the action sequences.

The ending is very satisfying and the cut scene in the final credits incorporates an actual continuation of the story and brings some clarity to how the apes managed to take over the Earth. This vaguely dovetails "Rise..." into the 1968 "Planet of the Apes" film, of which this is a prequel to.

You don't need to see any of the other "Planet of the Apes" films to understand "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". It stands entirely on its own and really surpasses the original series in story and quality.

This movie's opening few minutes were the best it had to offer. It really pulled me in, but unfortunately, by about the half way point, I'd gotten tired of hearing the cast of misfits, troublemakers and convicts talk about themselves. There weren't enough of the actual predators around to keep things interesting.

Adrien Brody doesn't work very well here. Neither does Alice Braga. They're decent enough actors but they just seemed out of place in this violent, Action/Sci-Fi flick.

There were a number of twists and turns here and they were surprising at times, but frankly, weren't all that interesting. I won't write about them as I don't want to spoil anything, even though they only affected me slightly.

"Predators" looks pretty good. I liked the alien landscapes but at times the fight scenes seemed confined to what must have been a rather small set. It felt a bit like Kirk fighting Kruge on the Genesis planet (a monumentally corny scuffle that I still laugh at).

This is the weakest of the "Predator" movies. The original is a total classic while "Predator 2" is a really fun B-Movie romp. I'm not counting any of the "Alien Vs. Predator" movies. They don't exist in the same Humans Vs. Predators domain to me.

I recently watched "The Revenant", another Man vs. Nature film also set in the 1820s. If that film and "In The Heart Of The Sea" have showed me anything it's that I'm thrilled that I didn't have to live during that period of time. Both films do a very good job of highlighting Man's helplessness against the world without his tools. I think the same thing holds true today, it's just that it would take a bit longer for Nature to win in the 2010s. But make no mistake, she'd win.

"In The Heart Of The Sea" was not what I expected, which was a story about amazing heroism and bravery. Instead, this morphed into a tale of survival, complete with some disgusting do-it-or-die actions by the crew of the Essex.

This was a letdown from a visual perspective. All of the scenes just screamed CGI. And casting Chris Hemsworth and Cillian Murphy as the main characters felt entirely wrong.

An admission here...I've never read "Moby Dick" so I have no idea how closely this movie follows the book. I was continually surprised by where the film went, though. The tone got very desperate and downright depressing. The impression I had was that this would be a breathless, sea mist in the face, hearty tale of a battle against a mighty beast. That's not how it went at all.

The thing that makes this movie so special is the skill with which the cast members deliver the jokes. I have no idea why Slim Pickens yelling "What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on?!" is so funny, but it is. I'm not sure I caught half of what Madeline Kahn was saying or singing but I know I laughed out loud. Check out how awkward she is when she's performing her song and stumble act. Her character doesn't even know she can half-ass it and it won't matter to the hootin' and hollerin' rough riders in the audience. It's like she's trying but she's just that bad and it still doesn't matter. Very subtle in a movie not known for its subtlety.

Harvey Korman drives the movie with what is basically a mustache-twisting Snidley Whiplash performance sans the mustache. I think Slim Pickens is my favorite, though. His Taggart character is just smart enough to know he's leading a group of idiots but not smart enough to actually do it. His frustration with his boss and his minions is hilarious. He's trying but it's hopeless and he knows it.

The whole affair degrades into total chaos by the end and those expecting to get a conclusion that actually makes sense are out of luck. But this is all done for laughs so none of it matters. It's all about having a good time.

This was my first time viewing "Mulholland Drive". I'm bothered. Am I not bright enough to "get" it? Was it trying to call me stupid? What did I miss?

Dreams, dreams, dreams. Another film about a dream. Or a dream within a dream. I'm sick of movies with dreams. "Inception" made me angry because I didn't like it yet felt like I had to rate it highly because everyone else praised it. I didn't want to come away looking like a movie mouth-breather. Now along comes this. Not again.

The way "Mulholland Drive" unfolds makes little sense to me, but Hey...I liked it! So I'm not going to try and figure out its secret meaning, if there even is one. I'm not remotely interested in trying to dissect it.

I'm pretty sure that "Mulholland Drive" is pointless. I want to know more about Betty and Rita, but not really. That might take away the mystery of their strange, fascinating relationship.

Would most people hate this? I'm happy that I endured this film without it being a chore. I want to know that people who bought tickets to watch "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" or "Grown Ups 2" at the mall theater thought this was a Lifetime Channel movie about two girlfriends and then turned it off before it finished. That way I can be certain that I'm cooler than those people. Those people who just don't "get" it.

"Mulholland Drive" is the kind of movie that can legitimize me as a film snob if I can just prove to others that I understood what the Hell it was about. But I can't. So, I'm one of THEM. That, and I kind of liked "Gods of Egypt". I'm doomed.

"The Terminator" is a great movie but "Terminator 2" expands the story and adds even more action. Every moment that Robert Patrick's T-1000 terminator is on the screen is gold. When the T-1000 is frozen, shattered, and then reformed, it's a Hall-of-Fame Sci-Fi moment.

The music that accompanies the T-1000's appearances on-screen is like an alarm that warning you there's trouble, as if the sight of it running after you at high speed isn't already enough.

I think the biggest kick for me is the T-1000's ability to form "knives and stabbing weapons" (to quote Arnold's T-101), which it uses to kill, pry, torture, etc.

Schwarzenegger is great as the now human-friendly T-101. I love the way his cyborg becomes ultra-aggressive and attacks the T-1000 late in the film. I'm not sure I'm very big on the John Connor character. His behavior is the only thing that dates the film. I think his relationship with the T-101 brings some unwelcome corniness to the ending.

I watched the "Extreme DVD" edition of "Terminator 2" and it adds a number of scenes to the theatrical version that clear up some of the questions I had. For example, in the scene where the T-1000 has Sarah call for John in the steel mill. I always wondered why it didn't just kill Sarah and imitate her voice and appearance. As it turns out this occurs after the T-1000 has been frozen, shattered, and reformed. Several moments in between these events reveals that the liquid terminator is malfunctioning, which could explain why it needed Sarah to call out to John. It isn't just a case of being afraid to kill off main characters after all.

"T2" is another James Cameron classic and if you haven't seen it you're missing out on a great film.

This is one of those cult classic Horror movies that every hardcore fan says you have to see to earn your stripes. I can see some of the reasons for its must-see status. I really like Jessica Harper. She's fantastic and she creates a character that is extremely likable and easy to root for. The visuals are pretty strange but I can't call them impressive. There are some very odd architectural flourishes and some interesting lighting. There's no doubt that some of the artistic decisions of "Suspiria" influenced other movies that came later. But the movie had a cheapness to it. Visually it kept reminding me of "Phantasm" and I don't have a good explanation for that.

The opening murder scene that features the repeated stabbing and then hanging of a student is very violent. It's not the brief quick or jump cut type of killing you see in most slasher movies. This is an extended attack and it is brutal. There was also a scene with a victim jumps into a room to escape an attacker only to find the room is filled with wire! Creatively gruesome to say the least.

"Suspiria" wasn't scary but it was horrific at times. As silly as this sounds, some of the snoring and grunting noises from what was ultimately the most evil character struck me as being creepy. The biggest drawback was the story which most times made little sense. It just seemed like a lot of things happened for no particular reason.

Movies about gigantic monsters don't come along nearly often enough for me, so when "Cloverfield" opened, I was there. This movie offered a fresh perspective on the genre with the entire film shot from the perspective of a victim on the ground. Many people said that the constant motion and jumpy movements gave them headaches or made them feel ill. The “shaky cam” perspective may have been too distracting if you sat too close in the theater.

None of the movie is told from the military’s or scientist’s perspective. There is no explanation as to where the monster came from, what it is or what it wants. It just shows up and starts tearing things up.

It’s interesting that the monster is gigantic, but the only time you see how huge it really is occurs during a newscast playing on a TV and when the guy with the camera ("Hud") happens to pass very closely to the rampaging beast.

There are some great scenes here. The opening panic of the initial attack is captured perfectly. There is also a crazy moment when the main characters run between the monster and the military who are firing at it. It's very intense.

Many will analyze this movie closely for 9/11 symbolism since it takes place in New York. There is a skyscraper collapse and subsequent dust cloud that recalls the WTC disaster. The "decapitation" of the Statue of Liberty symbolizing the attack on liberty. The repeated shouts of "It's Alive" meaning that terrorism isn't dead but alive and well as the creature symbolized. Even the parasites that fall from the beast could be symbolizing biological terrorism.

Actually though, if you don't dig deeply into this movie, you'll have a good time for the thrill ride it provides.

This remake of a 1960's classic is not classic Carpenter. It's a mostly lifeless retelling with no scares, mediocre acting, and surprisingly few interesting Carpenter touches.
I like the opening scene. In a localized area around the city of Midwich, all of the people and animals fall unconscious. It's really effective and while nothing stands out about the way it happens, it's disturbing to see everyone go down in such a fashion. And frankly, that's where the movie gets less interesting for me and it's far too early for that to happen.

Carpenter doesn't seem to do much to try and scare us. This is pretty much played as sci-fi. There are a few grisly deaths. And no, I don't mean the one where a man is hypnotized into jumping his pickup into a propane tank. One of the main characters dies very early in the runtime and one guy falls unconscious, but unfortunately, face first onto a barbeque grill. In another scene a woman is forced into putting her arm into a pot of boiling water. All of these things are pretty unique but not scary.

The evil children in the movie turn out to be a formidable problem for Midwich, but Christopher Reeve flies to the rescue, not as Superman, but as a doctor. He manages to find a way to counter the hypnotic powers of the youth, but not before they have run up the body count and have progressed to becoming a problem for the entire state government.

Then, there are those children. They walk or sit around for the entire movie, not exactly threatening, but they've got a menacing flavor to them. The child actors are really the problem here, along with a completely strange performance by Kirstie Alley. Talk about a square peg in a round hole. She is totally off-putting as Dr. Susan Verner. She arrogant, cocky, and supposedly smart, but she doesn't sell a single one of those attributes. This doesn't feel like a Carpenter movie. Does it look too polished? Is it because the children are so robotic? There are so many opportunities to polish off the little hellions that aren't capitalized on, that it took me out of the movie.

Trying to decide what direction to take when expressing an opinion about a film that is so different and so intriguing is tough to do. Random thoughts follow.
Let's get Daniel Day-Lewis's performance out of the way. He's remarkable here as Daniel Plainview. He's intelligent, ruthless, vicious, and greedy. There's literally nothing to like about him. Paul Dano is Eli Sunday, a crooked preacher who is the primary rival of Plainview. Eli is also unlikeable. He's greedy, manipulative, and naive. The story centers around these two characters and their mistrust and hatred of one another.
Plainview has a son and there is an event that occurs around the halfway point of the film that builds some sympathy for Plainview, but we end up hating him even more as Plainview rejects his son because he will be unable to run Plainview's company when he's dead. It's really cruel, but it makes perfect sense. From what we know about Plainview, it's entirely consistent with his character's traits.
The story starts humbly with Plainview digging for gold and growing his oil business to the point where he can have anything he wants. However, what he wants is to destroy his competition. Competition is what drives him. Some will watch this film and decide that this is a commentary on the ills of Capitalism and Religion. Those that pay less attention will believe it to be a finger-pointing parable about the evils of "Big Oil". But this is a story about a man whose competitive spirit could ultimately destroy him.
The film is beautiful to look at and is appropriately slow moving. It takes it's time to build and when it does, things get very tense. The ending is sudden but appropriate and allows the viewer to finish Plainview's life story on their own.

"Thunderball" is an average entry in the 007 franchise. Connery plays a downright brutal Bond, dishing out plenty of punishment to the SPECTRE henchmen and killing quite a number of other baddies. He's also quite a showoff here; making what has got to be record time with the ladies and memorably playing dumb while shooting trap with Largo. This features the jetpack escape in the opening scene, which is cool but pointless.

Largo as SPECTRE #2 is a lukewarm villain and his threat to use two nuclear bombs on cities unless he gets paid a ransom is lame. He's a bank robber, basically. Bond's mission was made more enjoyable by the help he got from other agents and the CIA. It played a bit like the squad from the "Mission: Impossible" series.

"Thunderball" features plenty of underwater action and the climax of the movie features an underwater war followed by a brawl onboard the Disco Volante. The boat narrowly misses smashing against the rocks so many times that it becomes truly silly and the film is so sped up that it's laughable.

It seems like much of the movie is spent following Bond either scuba diving or flying around in a helicopter looking for clues. There was a scene where Bond is being pursued by henchmen during a parade that drags on forever.

Of course, the Bond women in this film range from tough to spunky to naive, but they are among the most beautiful group in the Bond films. Fiona, Patricia, and Domino are integral to the movie.

This is the weakest of the first four 007 films.

As far as I'm concerned "Christine" is probably the most cruelly overlooked John Carpenter film. Maybe I'm just a little biased as I'm a big fan of classic cars and Christine is truly a classic. She's a Plymouth Fury complete with big body, big tail fins, big engine, and even a push-button automatic transmission. My parents had a few late '50s, early '60s Mopars, and I remember their high-speed crusing, tire-smoking personalities.

With that bit of nostalgia stated, Carpenter creates a scary bitch of a monster. Christine is a red, sometimes fiery demon. I love the way the car attacks her victims, plowing over and through everything. Jealous and relentless, she'll have her man and no one will stand in her way.

The special effects of Christine "rebuilding" herself are still very convincing. It's so refreshing...no CGI. The most effective card Carpenter plays is the way he builds the suspense. Christine is practically a cobra ready to strike, you're just not sure when. Carpenter films the car beautifully, especially the sequences when she slowly idles, nearly stalking those she sees as a threat to her man Arnie. And speaking of Arnie, Keith Gordon is too physically wimpy in his transformation into "evil" Arnie, but he sells it with his psychotic dedication to the car.

"Christine" is a movie that I can watch over and over again but I don't think I'd ever want to get behind her wheel.

Ang Lee's "Hulk" is nuts. From the comic book panel effect to the insane and possibly chemically-induced performance of Nick Nolte, this seems closest to what a Hulk movie ought to be.

It truly seems as though Bruce Banner's transformations turn him from a normal skin-and-bone human being to an animated monstrosity born into the real world. When he turns Hulk, he looks like an animated freak straight out of a comic book. Call it primitive CGI if you want, but I think it works almost perfectly. It makes the Hulk himself scary. At times it nears "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" levels of "Toontown".

I don't even care about Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly or Sam Elliott. Just give me the scenes with the massive, swollen Hulk leaping across the desert Southwest. His breakout from the military lab, his battle with tanks, his foot race with Army helicopters, it's all just a blast! Not to mention the brutal fight between Hulk and three deformed Nolte-dogs.

The only real drawback for me is an underwhelming ending battle between Hulk and his father, Nolte-thing. It's really hard to see what is happening in this sequence, even on Blu-Ray. The two are fighting in the clouds and underwater, I think. It ends so uneventfully. Maybe a bit to artsy of an attempt to wrap things up.

Visually, "Don't Look Now" is certainly different, almost experimental. But it's so hung up on those visuals that it forgets to bring the story along with it. The film is plodding, but when it moves, it jumps around within the alleys and canals of Venice. It's disorienting to say the least and maybe the location is part of the director's game.

This isn't a scary movie. There are a number of moments when we get a glimpse of a red-coated, ghostly figure that resembles what John (Donald Sutherland) and Laura's (Julie Christie) daughter was wearing when she died. It feels a bit like a predecessor to many of today's Horror movies that feature a scary little girl. There aren't many moments of horror or tension, except for the early death of the girl. Outside of that, Religion is flirted with but it doesn't play any substantial role in the plot.

Julie Christie's joy upon hearing details about her daughter from a blind but psychic woman is a standout moment. She lights up a movie that to this point had been dreary as Hell. She's gorgeous and I had a hard time with Sutherland being paired with her. He's no fun to watch in this movie and the love-making scene with Christie doesn't help. The director goes absolutely Austin Powers in the scene, strategically hiding Sutherland's naughty bits a number of times. Funny is what it is.

The ending was a total letdown. It's sort of makes sense and it's a twist, but it's too much of stretch.

I'm giving this one more point than Part One because something explodes. Kidding aside, I was actually getting angry because the attempts to build up drama about the conspiracy being an inside job at the FBI was so lame. The reveal of spreading alien DNA by way of contaminating the water supply is just dull.

Mulder has disappeared because he was warned he'd be killed...I guess? He almost died in every episode of the show that came before so this makes no sense. At the time of airing, everyone that watched the show knew that Duchovny wouldn't return for Season 9. They had to explain that away somehow.

Scully's baby William is showing hints of superpowers because as an infant, he's making the mobile above his bed rotate. This moves Scully to action as she joins Doggett and Reyes in the investigation of the alien DNA lab aboard a ship. The answer of course, proves to be just out of reach as the trio has to exit the ship early or be killed by a bomb that's about to go off.

Please, for all that is sacred, bring on the monster-of-the-week episodes! I can't take any more of the story arc.

Secondary characters in this episode: Kersh, AD Brad Follmer, Shannon McMahon, Lone Gunmen, Knowle Rohrer

You'd think that setting this in a city would make the greater potential kills of the Predator even more threatening, but that would be wrong. There's never really a sense of the Predator stalking victims, it just drops in and kills drug dealers, because they have weapons.

Every character in this movie is on speed AND caffeine. Why are they all spastic? Is it the L.A. heat? Everyone is sweating profusely, too. It's really annoying. The shootout between the police and the drug gang is way over the top and impossible to determine why there aren't dead bodies lying three deep with all the shots being fired.

Danny Glover is no Arnold Schwarzeneggar. He's tough but not a badass like Arnold's character "Dutch" was in the original. The Predator that Glover battles must have just gotten his hunting license. In fact, Los Angeles is like a game farm compared to the jungle where the first Predator battled Dutch. It would be pretty simple to hunt animals in a game farm, so the Predator of this movie isn't making his safari much of an adventure.

There are two things that really save this movie. The practical effects associated with look of the Predator. It remains an iconic alien creation. And the final battle on the rooftops between Glover and the alien is entertaining.

The series gets worse. Michael isn't dead (surprise!!) and little Jamie's having visions of Michael's presence again. Dr. Loomis continually pesters Jamie to tell him where Michael is, but she's too frightened to do so. Or it could be that she can't understand what the Hell he is saying because his voice sounds like he's been gargling battery acid. And why is he smothering her all the time? Everytime he talks to her he is about two inches from her face. In fact, everyone seems to do that in this movie. Why was everybody so close to one another? It made me claustrophobic.

Rachel's back (for a while anyway), and the story ends up following a new girl named Tina around. She's typical late 80's, Cyndi Lauper-ish, girls-just-wanna-have-fun sort of annoying. She parties with her friends on Halloween as the body count around her rises.

I'm trying to write up something interesting about this movie but I was just bored with it. There were a couple of things that struck me as completely odd or maybe just stupid. One of them was two cops whose appearance was paired with some loopy carnival-style music when they first showed up. They weren't funny or particularly goofy. They were more bland so I didn't get what the filmmakers were attempting to accomplish. Another off the wall decision was to have Michael drive a muscle car around. It just never approached scary and was totally out of character because he used it to scare Tina. Michael doesn't scare people, he just attacks and kills them.

Aw, forget it. I've said more about "Halloween 5" than it deserves.

The characters in this movie are so bland and cookie-cutter that Rinko Kikuchi (as Mako Mori) seems Oscar-worthy. Not sure why John Boyega is as big of a deal as he is and Scott Eastwood looks like his Dad, so there's that. The group of cadets in this movie are sickeningly spunky and angst-y. Only ten-year olds could possibly be interested in them.

The story is dumb and even with all the ridiculous tech on display, I still refuse to believe the feisty teenage cadet (Amara) could have designed, much less assembled, her Jaeger "Scrapper". When Jake and Amara are reentering Earth's atmosphere inside of a red-hot Gypsy, why didn't they burn up? The front shield is busted out. The city destruction action loses all of its impact because the jaegars themselves destroy skyscrapers with reckless abandon. Something else lost is scale. The jaegars and kaiju are big but the shots of them are too tight. Pull the camera away from the city and show the beasts from a distance (like the shot of Surtur destroying Asgard in "Thor: Ragnarok").

The quality of the CGI effects were definitely better than most movies, and the jaegar designs are inspired. The kaiju creations were few and far between and were not the focus of the action as in Del Toro's original. I have to give an extra star for a twist that occurs with a main character that I didn't see coming.

I'm a big fan of giant monster movies, even though they are usually pretty bad. "Pacific Rim: Uprising" is better than the worst of the genre, but the choice to make it super kid-friendly has pretty much leveled the world Del Toro created.

I just re-watched the theatrical version of this. It's included on a bonus disc of an old DVD set that I have of the original trilogy. It was such a treat to see the film again, as it was initially released. I don't want to get hung up on nostalgia, but it was a bit like stepping back in time, back to the old Vogue Theater in my small central Minnesota town. Yep. Stage, curtains, balcony...the works. I was 16 years old at the time and excited like never before to see a movie.

I'd forgotten the stop-motion goodness of Han and Luke riding Tauntauns on ice planet Hoth. The intimidating thunder of the Imperial Walkers as they attacked the rebel base. The fierce light saber battle between Luke and Darth Vader. The Millennium Falcon was practically a main character, too.

There's some real corn here. The sexual tension between Han and Leia is super juvenile, but it's funny. The suave hustle that Lando puts on Leia. "Laugh it up, Fuzzball!".

The visual effects, which were ground-breaking at the time, look mostly dated now. The matte paintings, green screen, and stop-motion show their age. But those things didn't negatively affect my enjoyment of this at all. The story is so simple and the characters so rich that anyone who dismisses this wonderful film based on dated effects is someone I don't want to share a movie-going experience with.

This is a true cinematic classic. I don't know that I would ever call it better than its predecessor ("A New Hope") but it's certainly its equal.

The first half of this movie is really good. A corpse is found buried beneath a home. Everyone in the house is dead but police think it looks like the dead family was trying to get out. The police bring the "Jane Doe" corpse to a morgue where the protagonists, played by Hirsch and Cox, proceed to dissect it. They gradually uncover the mystery of the dead body and it's by far the most intriguing portion of the movie.

As the story progresses, it turns into more of a haunted house flick, albeit an entertaining one. There are a couple of deaths along the way that tick up the body count. One of them is an animal death which seems to occur only to bolster sympathy for Cox and Hirsch. This was likely thought necessary for those character's perils later.

There are some sustained scares but it's nothing too frightening. Only a couple of jump scares happen...nice to see that trend lessening. If you're averse to gore, especially surgical gore, you may want to steer clear of this.

The ending was decent. Nothing mind boggling, but the best fit given the tone of the rest of the story.

Overall, this was a nice surprise. It was better than expected.

A scary little girl (again), a haunted doll (again), and yet another spooky well. There are certainly no new ideas in "Annabelle: Creation" but son of a gun, it was pretty effective. Even the jump scares, which I normally hate, seemed appropriate. The house was a spooky place and the choice of not showing the doll walking around was smart. The actresses playing the two youngest girls, Janice and Linda, were quite good.

There were some things that really bugged me, though. With all of the people in the house, why were so many solo scares? How did no one else hear the screaming? Especially Janice's encounter with the soul-seeking demon on the staircase. Janice screams as an evil entity pushes her wheelchair across the yard and into a shed. Yet everyone hears her screaming from inside the shed but not as she is yelling in the yard, out in the open, where the other girls are. There seemed to be a lack of attention to details at times.

"Annabelle: Creation" has some good scares and its got a limited amount of gore. It's rated 'R' and that surprised me. It's a decent haunted house story without excessive bloodletting.

The biggest disappointment was the lack of a payoff for the scarecrow tease. Scarecrows are scary.

If Reeves is actually doing his own stunts here it's damned impressive. Actors performing stunts is something I really appreciate. Heck, the only reason I remain a fan of Tom Cruise's movies is because of this, so Keanu being much more likable, knowing that he did most or all of the stunts is awesome.

The problem is that while all of the physicality of the fights and the gun-foo is cool, there's not much of a story. The number of people getting shot in the head is disconcerting too, and loses it's impact when the thirtieth person takes one in the forehead. I could have used a little more of Wick just petting his dog. The ending is pretty neat but when you mull it over for a second, it's nothing more than a sequel setup.

There is a sequence when Wick goes gun shopping that is so out of place. Hollywood leads the charge on gun control yet glorifies them in scenes like this one. I guess it's okay if we use guns to sell movie tickets. I'm not stating any position I personally hold, I just found the scene ironic. Maybe these particular filmmakers don't hold the same position that the film industry constantly pats itself on the back over.

This is a movie that I like just fine but it's almost solely based on Keanu just being a really good action movie guy.

I'm glad I saw this in the theater on the biggest screen possible. It's an entirely visual film with minimal characterization, which in this case made the viewing experience fascinating. I can't think of a movie I've seen where I've felt more in the middle of the action. Christopher Nolan's direction here is truly unique.

Many people aren't going to like the fact that there is little to no background on the characters. I've wailed about this many times before but the majority of TV and Movie watchers want season after season of shows or sequel upon prequel of movies. They get comfortable with characters and they feel they need to know everything about them. Well, that isn't going to happen during "Dunkirk", and I guarantee there won't be a sequel.

What made "Dunkirk" so enjoyable for me was the moment by moment struggle. The mixing of three different timelines wasn't something I was conciously noticing. Everything melded together almost seamlessly.

Nolan is certainly the type of director that should be one of my favorites. I was disappointed in "Inception" and "Interstellar" for a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with characterization or visuals. "Dunkirk" is such a unique movie that it raises my Nolan-o-meter up a notch.

"The Boy" is a beautiful movie featuring a creepy doll as the center point of its story. Personally, I've never found dolls particularly scary. Now if this was about a ventriloquist dummy, that would probably terrify me. Short of the Twilight Zone's "Talky Tina", I just don't find them frightening. But Brahms, who is the creepy doll of this story, he's pretty unnerving.

The goal of my review is not to give away anything. I can recommend "The Boy" as a thriller, but not as a Horror movie. It's rated PG-13 which means it comes pre-loaded with minimal gore and about a half dozen jump scares for teenagers who pay their money to jump out of their seats and then giggle with relief and embarrassment. But for those of us with the ability to recognize and appreciate a movie that can sustain a mood and generate fear, it's nice to find that "The Boy" has some of those moments as well.

The first two-thirds of "The Boy" are its highlight. The development of Greta the Nanny (Lauren Cohen) and the backstory of Brahms, the deceased boy that the doll represents, is interesting. Once the elderly parents of Brahms leave on vacation, Brahms slowly torments Greta. We never see Brahms move and neither does Greta, and honestly it gets frustrating, but in a good way. It really ramps up the suspense and anticipation of the moment when we might get to see Brahms in motion.

During the last third of the run time, things fell apart for me. I didn't care for the direction, or should I say the twist, that the movie took. It's not spoiling anything by saying there's a twist, especially for a twist junkie like myself. It just didn't go in the direction that I would have hoped it would. It's also not giving anything away by mentioning that direction is not something especially unique. Others may like the finale more than I did.

Overall, this is a moody, good-looking movie with solid acting and a decent amount of suspense.

A scientist who works for DARPA, teams with a group of tougher-than-nails (of course) soldiers to battle an army of supernatural entities in some war torn country overseas. The scientist is apparently the long lost son of MacGyver because he manages to build "plasma" weapons from a supply drop into a refugee's camp. He also turns a one-of-a-kind night vision camera into a night vision spotlight with an inexhaustible power source. I'm not an Electrical or Mechanical Engineer but the things that this do-it-yourself-er comes up with are impossible. He single-handedly changes the future of military weaponry in an afternoon. And the worst part is that it's all done with the utmost of seriousness. Not a wink or a smirk anywhere that would acknowledge how ridiculous the entire affair is.

I thought that the premise of an army of ghosts was dumb but the way that they came to be in the war-torn crap hole of a country was intriguing. And although I didn't care what happened to the characters, I thought it ended properly. In other words, the scientist and the lady CIA agent didn't forget their disagreements, get hitched and adopt Newt...er, I mean, the little girl that they find in the city.