Change Your Image
Top_Cat84
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Minions (2015)
Disappointing..apparently even for kids
If you've seen the trailer for this then it doesn't matter if you turn up to the cinema 15 minutes late as the beginning is an extended version of it with few extra jokes. The guy next to me obviously had as he fell asleep during it!
The cinema was full of children. Not children laughing. I suspect some were actually bored by it. To be honest, I was expecting more jokes myself but most of it is just a bit predictable and even uninteresting.
The last 10 minutes produces the best parts, but you have to sit through the rest of it to get there.
All in all it was disappointing.
Jurassic World (2015)
Good kids movie, not so good for adults
Firstly I will say that this is a good movie for kids. If you have a kid definitely let them see this movie as they will be completely enRAPTORed (sorry). I can definitely see that.
As an adult you may have a different opinion. It starts like a TV movie with parents sending their kids off to the Jurrassic World errm park.One of the kids is inexplicably completely bored with the idea of seeing any dinosaurs...it's like wise up, they've only been extinct for millions of years.
The CGI looks a lot better in the dark than in the light, but this is true for any current movie.
The characters are all lacking the emotional depth and humour that made the first film so endearing. Chris Pratt is fine but basically just plays an obnoxious loudmouth with little likability. Bryce Dallas Howard's character is so under-developed - I swear her script probably ran for less than a page and all it said was 'Sigh' here and 'Gasp' there. The two boys are fine, if not a bit annoying.
What, incredibly, is something that is completely lacking is that there are no moments of tension or anticipation AT ALL. If you think about the original when the ripples in the water gave the sense of foreboding doom and how much this added to the whole atmosphere of the film it's unbelievable there's absolutely nothing like this in this film.
Some of the homages to the original are good but all in all I wasn't as impressed as I was hoping to be.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Intense non-stop road rage
If, like me, you've heard about the original Mad Max trilogy but never gotten around to watching any of them don't let that put you off from watching this movie. It's a stand alone film with imagery so intense it'll be haunting you for days.
The characters all have individual and quirky personalities and - despite the title - it's a film that's not solely about a man called Max. In fact, a group of strong women headed by Charlize Theron's character Imperator Furiosa play a significant part in it.
This is not a dialogue-laden movie, with Tom Hardy's Max mainly grunting his way through each scene and any silence being taken up with the sound of large engines revving. This doesn't take away from the movie at all - rather it helps to emphasise the whole madness that has taken hold of humanity.
It's an adrenaline fueled film, with strong characters, a decent story line and intense imagery. Never has a film's imagery had such a strong effect on me - the craziness, the landscapes, the vehicles, the chases, the people are all just brilliant.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Fairly original, fairly generic
I've always loved horror movies where the main action takes place in an isolated house, hotel, cave, cabin or whatever. They just have a tendency to enthral me and capture my imagination. So that's what made me purchase this film when I saw it at a local bargain bucket store.
The beginning had me a bit bamboozled - I thought I'd picked up Austin Powers by mistake. I kept watching and soon realised that the film was more a blend of The Truman Show, The Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw...and Scooby Doo. It's basically a spoof of the horror genre without being too zany (as in it's not like Scary Movie). It shows us how silly and illogical horror films can be and is completely self aware (The bit where the Jock says "No matter what happens we have to stay together" only to say a few seconds later "This isn't right. We should split up" is hilarious).
There are actually a few other laugh out loud moments, most of which are the result of the stoner character doing or saying something.
So, of course this film isn't made to be taken seriously. It is a commentary on how predictable horror movies can be - and what would happen if they didn't stick to this format i.e. it would lead to the collapse of civilisation and the end of the world (obviously). It is great and original in this aspect and I admire it for the movie it was designed to be. It basically says what we've all been thinking for years.
That being said, maybe about 70% of the movie is the stereotype it's trying to mock. The writers/directors have used a magician's misdirection to fool you into watching (for the most part) a generic horror film while claiming it's something else. Nevertheless, I have to say I did enjoy it and would say it's worth a watch if it comes on TV.
Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)
A waste of the Psycho franchise
Well Norman Bates is out of the psychiatric hospital again and he's married...to a psychiatric nurse. He's at her house while she is out working and he is listening to a radio programme talking about sons killing their mothers. Naturally he calls in and most of the movie is made up of him telling the show about his life. On screen this is done through flashbacks. He warns the show that he has to kill again and we find out he has to kill his wife as she's "allowed herself to get pregnant".
He phones his wife and tells her to meet him at his mother's house. Despite her knowing his history she willingly obliges. Maybe she too is crazy.
There are a few "What the hell?!" moments that really don't need to be there.
On the radio show Norman refers to himself as 'Ed' and maybe the film should have been called 'Psycho IV: Ed, are you there?' as this one line is repeated constantly and becomes very annoying.
The actress who plays Norman's mother seems like she's reading her lines off a prompt at times and even her screaming seems unnatural. She's a very poor actress.
I wanted to see Anthony Perkins be Norman Bates again, but he only really is in the last ten minutes or so. The rest of the time he is completely wasted.
His wife really does seem crazy herself as she is very forgiving (and instantly forgiving). It's like "You nearly just tried to hunt me down and kill me and the baby with a knife but, forget about all that, I love you and our baby will love you".
I realise this was a TV movie rather than a theatrical release but it simply is no good. It is a waste of the Psycho franchise. Maybe Perkins knew his time was limited so he agreed to do it, but it's a shambles of a movie.
Psycho III (1986)
Nice homage to the Original
Opens with a scream of "There is no God" and follows an ex-nun who happens upon the Bates Motel. Her initials are MC and a lot of things about her remind Norman of Marion Crane from the first movie. He gets nervous around her but after saving her from a suicide attempt they start to get on and even go out on a date. It's not long, however, until Mrs Bates starts killing again!
I think the film could have done without the religious aspect and instead gone in a different direction. That being said, it isn't a bad film.
This is the first instalment in which you know who is doing all the killing, but this doesn't take away from the film - in fact I think the audience expects to see Mrs Bates/Norman killing people.
The shower scene from the original movie is shown again, but it's done with more style than in the second film and is actually relevant in this film. Further, there is a new take on the shower scene regarding a bath instead and with a different outcome.
It was good to hear "We all go a little mad, sometimes" again as it is one of my favourite movie quotes and there are many other homages to the original in this film.
Anthony Perkins again plays the part of Norman Bates well, albeit with less cheeky smirks and less boyish innocence. As with Psycho2 the supporting cast, again, slip to the background in the shadow of Perkins. The man who helps out at the motel and the sheriff are perhaps the only two that are memorable.
The fact that it's 1.5 hours long earns it half a star more to equal my score of 2-hour long Psycho 2.
Psycho II (1983)
Anthony Perkins great to watch
23 years after the original and Norman Bates has been released from the mental hospital. He moves back in to his house and resumes work at the Bates Motel. He meets a woman and says to her that she can stay in the house with him. Soon a spate of murders occur and the viewer is constantly wondering whether Norman has committed these murders or if indeed it is someone else. Norman's mental decline is exacerbated by the sister and niece of Marion Crane (from the famous shower scene in the original) who do their best to get him back into the mental hospital.
So, basically, it is two hours of whodunit. This gets a bit tiresome, though some scenes are better than others.
Anthony Perkins is again excellent at his portrayal of Norman Bates - with his stuttering manner and innocent boyish smile (It's a shame he never went on to make his name in other films, but I suppose that's what can happen when your breakthrough roll is done so brilliantly). The supporting cast (which includes Vera Miles returning as Lila Loomis née Crane from the original) is fine, though nothing spectacular.
The 18 certificate is hardly deserved by todays standards and I was a bit disappointed that the director chose to show the knife entering the flesh of the victims. Maybe this was shocking back in 1983 but Hitchcock was all about suggestion while Richard Franklin is more blatant in his style. As a result, the viewer is denied from 'feeling' and imagining what's happening - it's all more in your face.
The final reveal and what happens in the final scene is perhaps the most random ending to any film I've ever seen.
At nearly two hours long I felt it was a bit too long, but after having a few days thinking about it it genuinely is a memorable, eerie film.
I feel they could have created a better story and even made it as original as the first one, but this feels more like a TV movie than a grand theatrical release.
Anthony Perkin's eerie performance steals the show and this film is worth the watch for him alone.
Village of the Damned (1995)
The children save this movie from obscurity
So in this film a mysterious invisible fog penetrates a small Californian town, making everybody collapse and pass out. When they come to again the women soon realise that they are all pregnant. Despite the fears of having deformed babies they are all persuaded to keep them due to the promise of financial reward. Soon the babies are born and grow up to become murderous little children through their use of mind control.
From the children being born to them being of school age happens in the blink of an eye. I suppose this had to be done, but it just seems sloppily executed and a bit disorientating.
In one scene all the women have near-religious dreams persuading them further to keep their babies. The effects at this point reminded me of effects in the Ghostbusters franchise, despite being filmed six years after Ghostbusters 2. There appears to have been no advancements in SPX in this period (which I find hard to believe). This being said, I did really enjoy the effects when the little children, with their white make up and blonde hair, started shining their eyes. The imagery of this was perfect for the film.
The children in the film act particularly well. Christopher Reeve is good but doesn't get a real chance to shine as his character lacks depth. He's a character who I really wanted to care for but I just couldn't feel that emotionally connected with him. Kirstie Alley adds nothing of note to the film except about thirty cigarettes due to her lighting up in nearly every scene.
So, not a complete travesty but I imagine I won't go out of my way to watch it again anytime soon.
Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)
Not as good as the original and that's saying something
I was disappointed with the first instalment of this franchise but being the stubborn person I am I decided to check the sequel out in the hope of some improvement. Unfortunately what I got was a film that had lost all of its eeriness, which I believe should be central to a Silent Hill game or movie. Even the original had this. The effects were a let down too - probably down to it being a 3D film originally (anyone remember the effects from Jaws 3D?!).
The story follows Sharon the little girl from the original, who has magically come back from the purgatory of Silent Hill through a mirror (or something). Obviously she has amnesia and we have to follow her on her journey to discovering who she is (like we had discovered in the first instalment), which becomes boring.
In this film some people can get outside the Silent Hill area and visit the real world. This adds nothing, in fact it takes away from the whole concept of a specific town in a state of permanent purgatory.
The best bit I found is when a woman turns into a mannequin, but this is immediately let down by a ridiculous spider-mannequin thing which hasn't gone completely through the CGI process.
At least Sean Bean served some kind of purpose in this instalment, albeit simply motivation for Sharon to go to Silent Hill (and for a third instalment).
To me the franchise seems to be going down the Resident Evil game/movie tie-in route - no integrity in terms of story, characters or general feel. A carousel at one point even looks like the Umbrella Corporation symbol from Resident Evil from the air.
Silent Hill (2006)
Disappointng
This movie was made to be slightly disturbing rather than a jump fest, which is true to the game. Also I prefer 'horror' movies with a bit of depth and not just to make the viewer jump out of their seat.
I'm familiar with the first Silent Hill game. I remember it being slightly disorientating, eerie and odd - and this movie definitely lives up to this. However, I found the film as a whole disappointing.
The beginning is done with such pace that it's hard really to understand why they want to go to Silent Hill in the first place (If I had a kid who sleep walked while frantically shouting the name of a place I wouldn't think "Ah yes, this kid is terrified of something to do with this place, so I will immediately take them there").
The whole cult thing is my idea of a scriptwriter who has run out of ideas and I thought this was the most disappointing aspect of the film. It takes away from the feel of everything and makes it into a typical film where it's hard to distinguish between the good side and the bad side. To me, the fun is lost.
I'm a fan of Sean Bean, but there is no point to his character being in the movie at all, other than to increase the run time.
The nurses who were meant to be moving creepily towards Rose seemed like they were just waiting for Michael Jackson to arrive so that they could get their 'Thriller' on. This took away from what was meant to be a terrifying moment and made it into a release of tension moment - completely negating what it was meant to be.
The part at the end where the little girl explains everything is just an onslaught of back story and should have come out gradually throughout the film - this should have been done rather than Sean Bean being in the movie.
Pyramid Head ripping off the woman's skin is easily the best and most memorable part of the film and I'm a bit surprised he isn't in it more.
The ending is fine and maybe the second best moment as you can't help but feel a little sad that the people are so close yet so far away.