Reviews

When I first heard about this adaptation, I was excited. I'm a King fan; I'm always eager for more. But as the cast was announced, I became less excited. And the fact that it would only be on CBS All Access made it worse. However, with a recent trial of paramount plus, I decided to check it out.

They chose to case a hearing man to play Nick and said that they HAD to because Nick could hear and speak in his dreams in the book. What a joke that ultimately turned out to be. The dreams were barely featured and the scene with Nick's, he hardly had any lines. That he needed to be able to speak was a weak excuse. They also chose to change his background to make him and his mother immigrants. He is also incredibly important in the novel but his role is drastically cut back in this.

In the book, Larry is a white musician who has a soulful sound (his mother comments on how he... let's just say doesn't sound white). He goes on a bender after hitting big with that song, and he goes to NY to stay with his mom while he gets it together. In this version, Larry is a black drug addict who plagiarized his big hit. And his eventual paramour and mother of his unborn child in the book is mentioned one time by her first name and never seen onscreen in this. Similarly, Joe is dramatically reduced and never reveals his real identity.

And then there's Tom Cullen. Like Nick, he is not in this adaptation nearly as much as he should have been. You don't see any of their bonding to understand why they're so close. And his crucial role in saving Stu (and their entire harrowing return to Boulder) is reduced to a single line of dialogue "Tom saved my life". If they weren't going to actually show how they got home, I don't understand why they put Tom in the movie at all; I guess the script writer wasn't creative enough to come up with a way to sideline Stu and get him back without Tom?

Speaking of bad writing, the dialogue is pretty rough sometimes. That said, you hardly notice that because the acting is so bad. On the other hand, maybe the director kept telling them "Bite your lip more. Really exaggerate it! And shiftier eyes. Really strain them!"

My initial instinct was the right one. There was no reason to watch this.

I really enjoyed this film. I recognized many familiar elements from the source material and appreciated the deviations. I was delighted by the young cast. I was particularly moved that one of the Lost Boys was played by an actor who has Down syndrome. It was striking to me because the movie doesn't call attention to it. The character exists alongside the other Lost Boys in a perfectly natural and equal way, not treated like a mascot or singled out as "special". I was surprised, too, that I hadn't seen anything beforehand about the actor having been cast. It made it so the more meaningful to know that the actor was simply cast, and not used to promote the film based on its diverse and inclusive cast. One bit of casting that bothered me was that two separate actors played Mr. Darling and Captain Hook. I suppose given the film's alterations to the Hook character, it makes sense. However, that is a tradition that is difficult to see this movie break from. I think one of the elements I appreciated the most regards Wendy and her happy thoughts walking the plank. How lovely that she is saved by her own excitement for her future and the adventures that await her as she pursues what appears to be a writing dream. It would have been nice to see all of the characters developed just a bit more deeply, and similarly I would have liked to see more of Neverland. Those mermaids looked pretty interesting but they're not part of the story at all. So, not a perfect film, but a very good adaptation and worth watching.

I've loved almost everything about this show, and my only criticism was (and it's really a criticism of media in general) we can't ever seem to have a female centered show or movie without a love interest for the female at the center. I was disappointed that a potential love story between Janine and Gregory was apparent from the beginning. But I'm kind of a softy and they're both liable characters so I was willing to accept that this was not going to be the show to give me what I wanted; no show is perfect. Then this episode turned around and delivered up even better than I could have imagined, in a way that makes Janine and Gregory both more interesting, developed characters. This show continues to impress consistently. Now the only thing left is to give Mr. Johnson an identity beyond kooky janitor.

First, I don't get all the whining about it not being 90s enough. If what you wanted was a 90s horror movie, dry your tears and go watch Scream. I was a teen in the 90s too; we weren't that special. When we weren't resurrecting 70s style,we wore jeans and t-shirts. Unless you're reminiscing for the late 90s fashion craze of putting everything in display, I think the wardrobe choices were appropriate.

Regarding the content, it was a pretty decent film; I enjoyed the more modern take on the genre. I think I know where the story is heading (I haven't read the books), but I hope to be surprised. After all, I was not expecting the bread slicer, so they may have more unexpected twists up their sleeves.

What the movie did well was play to the audience. The Easter eggs (some obvious, some more subtle), the references to other horror movies (again, some obvious and some more subtle), and the set-up for the next film are all perfect for streaming audiences. Releasing the movies in short intervals and in reverse order is a fantastic strategy sure to keep viewers engaged well after July 16. It's certainly not the scariest or best executed horror movie I've seen but it got me excited to watch the next two films, so kudos.

I used ReelGood's Netflix roulette to find a movie to watch, and my only disappointment with this movie is from the fact that the genre I selected was "Thriller" which this most definitely was not. I kept expecting some sort of mystery or twist that would make this drama into a thriller, and it never came, but I'm still glad I watched it because this film was one of the rare movies that doesn't enlist tons of predictable cliches. The story follows former high school sweethearts as they reconnect after twenty years. The residual feelings between the two characters are evident right away and throughout the film you watch those feelings spark and rekindle. A typical hollywood romance would find an easy out of the predicament that Amanda is married, like her husband is negligent or abusive, but this movie doesn't do that. Instead, even though because of their chemistry and palpable desire you want to see them reconnect physically, you also don't because of the moral issues regarding her marriage. Though the final revelation that the couple was driven apart following an abortion is predictable in the moments leading up to it, the scene is still incredibly relatable. Everything about this story feels authentic and engaging. Though it is not terribly exciting, it is realistic. Even Jim's foolish notion that had Amanda not gone through with the abortion the couple could have been so happy together is genuine and understandable, given that people who are disappointed with their lives often think if one thing could have gone differently in their lives, they may have had the perfect life they fantasize about--even though if what they wanted to happen had, they would ultimately have found the fantasy still unattainable. The story, characters, and emotions were so real, so even though the movie wasn't thrilling, it was still beautiful and interestingly complex.

You don't even really need to read this review. Everyone else got it pretty much right. The movie is interesting enough to keep you engaged and there's not really any reason for you to be. Who is harassing this family? Why are they harassing this family? Who was that woman who came to the door and asked what they were doing in her house? What's up with Martha? If you want answers to all these questions and more, this movie says "Go f*&k yourself." There is literally no point to this movie at all. Is that supposed to be groundbreaking? Because it comes off as senseless. I kept expecting it the same old twist--it was the kid all along, he had a psychotic break after his dad died--but they couldn't even be bothered with at least a predictable explanation for what was going on. It's just nothing. No resolution. Thanks for wasting my time, Netflix!

I saw the preview on Showtime and said to myself, "ooh, self, that looks creepy, let's watch it!". My self agreed and it first was excitedly creeped out and confused. My self even chastised me for putting on a "scary" movie knowing my propensity to freak myself out at night. But then I started wondering what happened to scenes--it cuts from the middle of a fight to people in bed like they left the rest of the fight on the editing room floor. I became gradually more aware of the bad acting, and not long after that, it sunk in that the writing was pretty awful too. From there, it became laughable: lingering shots on unimportant things, undetectable character motivation, truly terrible dialogue, and a villian that just wasn't frightening. And let's not forget, one tiny section of wallpaper comes alive and growls even though there's no character there to observe it, as if the audience will feel menaced be a wallpaper dog. Seriously. That really happens, apparently for no reason. All in all, I don't anticipate any problems sleeping tonight, unless I have more It related nightmares.

This show was never advertised as as show for children or families, and containing characters from iconic fairy tales doesn't make it a kid's show or a family show. From the beginning of the series, the show has put its own unique twist on fairy tales; this episode is no different. While Dorothy and Little Red Riding Hood have previously not been portrayed as homosexuals, neither has Robin Hood been portrayed as being a father or in love with an evil queen, nor has Belle traditionally been in love with Rumplestiltskin, nor have Hades or the Wicked Witch traditionally been in love. In the second episode of the series, Regina murders her own father, and it was only one of many, many violent encounters on the show. I'm not sure why people would be perfectly happy letting their children watch all that violence, but get angry about depictions of love. We've also seen plenty of passionate kisses and implications that characters have had sex (see Regina and Graham in season one). If people saw all that and still said this was a great show for kids, they must have been deluding themselves. The only thing that was different in this episode was that the kiss was between two people of the same gender. It may be truly bothersome to homophobic people, but lesbians exist in the world, so there's no reason why they shouldn't be seen on television. That's reality. The only real problem with this episode was the decision not to send Robin and his daughter back to Storybrooke with Snow White, and the statement that without the phonebooths to call their loved ones, they have no way to know what's going on in Storybrooke; they had no way of knowing that even with the phones because the phones only deliver messages. I'm not entirely sure why they needed Snow out of the underworld but that was a poor way to achieve it.