Reviews

I don't recommend this at all. I'm just coming up to the end of the documentary now, and what a horrendously exploitative and bizzare film...

Of course, this isn't taking into account what the boys had suffered, just the production of the documentary itself.

Treating the trauma of these poor men like a horror film.

Perhaps the oddest part of all is the final scene where the brothers are placed at a table and discuss whether or not the "secret" should be revealed. Clearly neither of these men are mentally well enough to be involved in a production of this style, One that frames horrendous abuse as something akin to a cheap thriller movie.

Overall it's just plain bizarre... The strange repeated stock images of trees and storms, Eerie music and semi scripted scenes.

Some have questioned the authenticity of the story. The filmmakers are the ones to blame.

Just awful.

Dear John is advertised as a romance film, and whilst romance plays a part in it, I felt it was actually more of a biographical story of John.

The "letter writing" part is only really about 15 minutes of the whole film and the rest is more focused on Johns relationship with his father.

Perhaps the film tried to do too much at once by using a variety of heavy topics (Cancer, War, Autism, Heartbreak, Family problems etc) That it just ended up being a bit underwhelming at flat as none of the topics were really explored any further.

Some film fans claim that John and Time were brothers, which could be an interesting lens to watch it through.

A drama-romance film with a brilliant cast, set almost entirely within somebodies mind and memories? Sign me up! Or not...

ESOTSM had been recommended to me for years , However, I was left a little disappointed but couldn't quite pinpoint why. Another reviewer (sddavis63-way back in 2008...) explained it perfectly ; "A Beginning That Never Seems To End Followed By An Ending That Never Seems To Begin".

For a film with such introspective and psychoanalytical undertones, It left a lot to be desired in terms of character development.

The majority of the film is set within Joel's (Jim Carrey) mind as he is experiencing a medical procedure to erase his ex girlfriend Clementine (Kate Winslet) from his memory. It is a surrealist type film with dizzying camera angles and an intentionally confusing and dreamlike ambience. At times ethereal, at times bewildering, and at times just very bizarre.

Whilst the procedure is underway, Joel is also semi-aware of the clinicians conversations and how they play a part in the happenings between Clementine and himself.

Personally, I didn't sense any real chemistry between the main characters and the ending, never seemed to begin.

It's brave and interesting but I don't really think it lived up to all it could be.

I've only seen one other Bollywood so I'm not totally clued up on what the standard is, I have mixed feelings about KKHH...

Firstly, I found it very funny, I really do enjoy the Indian sense of humour I think it's similar to British... If that isn't your cup of tea then maybe give this a skip...

Secondly, Sana Saeed has to be the best child actor I've ever seen, she was amazing! I've never seen a child act so convincingly and naturally, Totally charming and definitely the star of the show!

Their are a couple of things I found difficult with this though...It is my understanding that Shah Rukh Khan is the most renowned Bollywood actor, I have to ask why.. In my opinion, he is quite a poor actor, everything is over the top and unbelievable, is this considered part of his charm?? Perhaps.

The aesthetics are great, I love how Bollywood films look so glamorous and dramatic, But something I have to point out (could be a culture thing) in Bollywood films they pretty much rely on coincidence to keep the plot going. It seems lazy to me, nothing really happens it all relys on fate, being in the right place, things just "happening", horoscopes not lining up so people can't get married etc...

Lastly, does anybody else fnd the storyline between Rahul and (daughter) Anjali a little creepy??

Starts off promising... realistic characters and an original plot. You're welcomed into the world of a very ordinary family with very ordinary struggles, with even a little bit of comedy thrown in... but it doesn't take long for it to all fall apart.. honestly, a disaster.

(Spoilers ahead!)

The night nanny is a "free spirited" (annoying and pretentious) bisexual polyamorous nosey 20-something year old. Whilst I liked watching the relationship between Tully and Marlo grow and develop (and what could have been a great opportunity for character development) it was totally and utterly ruined. Marlo and her husband end up having a threesome with Tully, whom they have barely known for five minutes, (Is it supposed to be hot? intriguing? surprising?) Whatever the director was going for, they totally missed the mark but this was just the beginning of a series of WTF moments..

Tully then tells Margo she needs a night out because her roommate won't let her be a thot. Yeah, a really touching moment (!) They go out to a bar, get drunk and then go to a rock gig. All is well until Tully breaks the news she can't work with the family any longer and she isn't needed their anymore, she's satisfied her husband and made her feel good now she must just disappear, like an x rated Nanny Mcphee. wtf. Why did she do it that night? So many plot holes. But alas, it gets even worse.

They argue a bit and then a scene takes place which can only be described as a breastfeeding fetishists dream... in a toilet at the club... Not even sure how to describe it.. just... wtf...

Marlo decides to drive them home (despite being drunk) and falls asleep behind the wheel, they crash into the lake and then are rescued... by... mermaids (yes, really!) wtf.

The ending attempts to be somehow heart warming and an insight into mental illness, nice try.

A total disaster. The moody irresponsible mum, the cucked dad, the annoying kids, the thotty babysitter. Nah mate.

----- Yes, I do get the ~meaning~ behind the movie, but something having a meaning behind it doesn't excuse the fact it's a weak movie------

First half of the movie feels like American Pie meets Saw. Original concept and good acting, something I'll remember for sure.

I think the only thing letting it down is 80% of the entire film is set in one scene (a shoot out between the members of the cult and the ATF) During this there is some decent character development but I feel like it was a bit of a missed opportunity to push the story even further. (What was happening in the outside world at this time etc...) It didn't feel a little amateur and like Kevin Smith had maybe run out of ideas before the end but overall I did enjoy it and it deserves a bit more recognition.

Disappointed does not even begin to cover how I felt about To The Bone. Promoting itself as a one-of-a-kind "made by people with eating disorders" film, I was excited to see a fictional works regarding anorexia that could still be relate able and quirky to it's intended audience. Instead, what I encountered was a surface-scratch of the hardships of anorexia done up as a pretentious whiny teenage rom com.

Lily Collins did a great job acting as a rebellious, eyeliner wearing, smoking, tumblr user, theirs no denying she is a great actress who we hope to see more from, but the filmmakers did no favours at all by making possibly the worst stereotype possible, not only is it harmful, it's also incredibly lazy, their was virtually no character development for the protagonist. But the worst part was Ellen entering the inpatient unit, I don't know what fantasyland the filmmakers got their facts from but damn, I dare anyone to find somewhere like this. For a start, each patient has a different disorder, Kendra is an overweight binge eater (also black and a lesbian, just to tick those boxes), Pearl is an anorexic "tubed" patient, Theirs also a pregnant bulimic (also jewish just to tick that box) , But the worst character in this whole shambles is Luke. I don't know what purpose this irritating, unrealistic , toe-curling cringey boy serves to the plot, yet for some unknown reason he gets alot of screen time. We don't learn alot about the mysterious Luke, is he gay? is he bi? why does he insist of everybody else eating? why is he such a knob to everyone? does he even have an eating disorder? But knowing he's a male ballet-dancer from London just ticks more boxes I guess. Throughout her stay in the hospital, she dosen't get better but Dr.Hippyshit Reeves encourages her to change her name to "Eli" which is supposedly supposed to serve some significance to the plot. Later on he takes the "rexies" (dont get me started on that one) to an art installment and tells them all that life is beautiful *cue montage of english guy ballet dancing in the faux rain* . How nice, I'm sure that would make a great difference to an anorexics life. Shortly after he tells the patients to say "fuck you" to all the voices in their head. Wow, real groundbreaking stuff. It is implied earlier in the movie that he has a long waiting list of families desperate for his help, who knew faux rain could make such a difference, hey? None of the patients get any better, the bulimic girl loses her baby, another is storing sick under her bed and using laxatives and Ellen, sorry, Eli is thinner than ever, she decides to run away to her mothers house (also a lesbian, also i-polar tick tick) After some weird flashing back and forward between heaven scenes, Eli ends up going back to the unit. Nothing in this film happens for any reason, It's unrealistic, poorly acted and full of lot holes. Nothing was ever said about the realities of living with an eating disorder, just lots of jokes ie;"suck my skinny balls" and even Eli laughing about spitting food out. I could rant and ramble about this forever, but the bottom line is. This is not anorexia, this is a hipster artsy joke.

Some interesting points where raised here but go and watch a documentary or read a book or something, save this for 14year old tumblr users

I have always stood by IT (1990) being the most terrifying movie of all time (despite the awful ending), so like many others I cringed at the thought of a remake. I went into the cinema expecting cheap jump scares, lack of plot line, overuse of CGI and a general mimicry of what was once the movie that terrified a generation.

However, I was pleasantly surprised by what turned out to be a great piece of cinema, and I would recommend it to anybody who is a fan of the horror genre or just wants to see something a bit different. I could give IT a 10/10 but like all films, it has its faults;

1) As I predicted, over use of CGI took away the eerie terror Pennywise possesses. Tim Curry portrayed a terrifying, yet very plain clown, leaving much to the viewers imagination, adding to the psychological tension. This pennywise has an almost laughable face and too many teeth. Other CGI moments killed the atmosphere, and it could have easily gone into "just another horror film" if not resurrected by the witty script.

2) Plot holes, as other IMDb users have mentioned, Their are a few plot holes in the movie, but as this is part of Chapter One they could be addressed in the sequel.

Now onto the good points.

* Acting- The cast were wonderful, the kids were portraying some very dark scenes, but they all handled them brilliantly and brought the unique characters to life. They were all totally believable. Bill Skarsgård had big boots to fill when it came to Tim Curry, and although I personally preferred the original pennywise he still gave an amazing performance in an alternative way.

* Overall Tone- One of my favourite things about IT was how it was full of symbolism, "easter eggs" and metaphors. So much darker than original and braving to touch themes such as Munchhausen's, Sexual Abuse, Grief and Bullying. It was gritty, but also witty. Just the right about of comic relief and one-liners. Humour and Horror combined are the pineapple and pizza of cinema.

* Comparison to the original- Just look at the promotional posters alone to sense the difference in vibe between the original and this version. In terms of cinematography, the original uses vibrant colours, and light hearted comical sounds and effects. For me, this makes the movie much scarier, when portrayed as something innocent the evil intensifies (another metaphor?) whereas the 2017 version has a blatantly depraved atmosphere, using creepy Victorian circus music, blood and gore, and an overall sense of "you should be scared" rather than "You shouldn't be scared, but you are aren't you?"

This version is much more Gothic

The original puts little emphasis on the backstories of The Losers Club, whereas this version puts it at the heart of the plot. Their definitely is a "nice" part of the film, a film of growing pains and friendship when being an outsider. Having this insight into the backstories allowed you to sympathise more, becoming emotional involved with them, and have a better understanding of their own fears and where they stem from, in this sense, this version is more psychologically intense and adds a depth that I believe was missed in the 1990 version.

In conclusion, if the caricature CGI was cut back, and the ending scene was shortened it would be near on perfect. I also think it is worth adding IT IS NOT A MOVIE ABOUT A SCARY CLOWN, YES THEIR IS A SCARY CLOWN INVOLVED BUT THIS IS NOT A MOVIE ABOUT A SCARY CLOWN. IT is a complex story of the destructive nature of repressed emotions, The fear of fear itself, Being an outsider in a world where you see things differently, and taken from a universe created by the great mind of Stephen King, if you want a film that will make you jump and scream, maybe you'll enjoy IT, If you want a film about Loss of innocence and the horrors of life, You'll love it.