This is a very polarizing film and for good reason. The book is one of the greatest of all time and there are enormous expectations for any Dune adaptation, yet it's worth noting that Dune is 800 pages long so turning the book into a single, 2.5 hour movie is incredibly difficult. It's apparent that there is a drop in quality about half way through the movie, this is because Lynch's budget and time frame weren't matching up with what the studio allowed for him. This unfortunately led to a rushed and fairly low quality ending to Dune. However, the Intro to this movie with Princess Irulan explaining the universe in space is my favorite of all time and the first half in general is excellent. All in all Lynch did all he could to save this movie and it is still enjoyable but the task was too big even for an excellent director like David Lynch
Try watching the beginning of this movie and un-know what you know about the franchise. Who are these two guys? Where did they come from? Why are they after Sarah Connor. It is a great example of suspense-building storytelling.
This is like the 100th time I'm watching The Terminator. I just noticed this for the first time: Sarah hides in a club called Tech Noir so she can use the telephone. The phone is literally ON THE DANCE FLOOR! Hahahahaha. Gotta love the 80s.
Underwater kept my attention throughout. It’s well shot with a fine cast, decent performances and plenty of suspense.
The film is definitely better than most underwater creature movies. It doesn’t help that the comparisons are Deepstar Six, Leviathan or Sphere though.
I left out the Abyss since just the marines on board are bad. Otherwise it’s the best underwater science fiction film.
What in the unholy movie hell, did i just watch. Im pretty much speechless. So many stupid things in this movie. But also feels like i just did magic mushrooms and had a weird trip thru Cages twisted mind.
The first time I watched the movie, I didn't noticed that he is blind. But when you rewatch it, you can see all the little hints for it. Really cool. But every Denzel movie is cool ^_^
This movie is without a doubt the best adaptation of King Arthur. The acting is spectacular, the visual style is stunning, the action is excellent, the themes from the source material are all there, and the costumes/sets are the best I have ever seen. I don't think anyone will ever make an adaptation that stays so true to Arthurian legend, manages to cover the entirety of the story, and still ends up so amazing.
SciFi B Movie based on a short of the same name. The first 30 minutes whipped me up into a frenzy. The visuals and slow pace were perfect. From then on it declined a bit, mainly due to the clunky script, weak characters and use of a few tropes (tripping over a branch in a forest while being pursued etc). The third act rescued it slightly, as did the gorgeous cinematography, which must have been on a limited budget, so fair play to the film-makers for producing something so interesting looking. Sophie Thatcher was fine as the lead, and I would have liked to see more of Jay Duplass.
Overall, a fine effort, just lacking in a bit of invention.
To enjoy this film you have to buy into its weirdness. I did and had a good time with it, despite the bonkers plot. Cage is great here bringing his usual brand of cool and he is clearly having a good time in the role.
...People had more than they needed. We had no idea what was precious and what wasn't. We threw away things people kill each other for now...
I was hopin there'd be some things runnin around lol but still a good watch... Very impressive when you consider the budget
Way better than the average low budget Netflix sci fi fare. Smart writing and directing, solid acting, and AMAZING(ly efficient) world building made for a fun, thoughtful and engaging 96 minutes.
Small but touching and charming. Worthy of an evening's viewing.
one of the best movies i've seen it remains on my mind still...
When someone asks me for a movie to watch, this movie is among the first mentioned!
My favourite saga of all times, not even starwars or anything else. I love the whole idea and premise of Judgement day, making this one of the best movies in the 80s and years to come. It created a myth and so so many more in the movie franchise.
For me, this sequel is definitively not on par with "Hellraiser". It's also cheaply made, has only a few scary moments and is even more gory than part 1, but the real problem IMHO is the strange and sometimes incomprehensibly way the rather weak plot is told!
I think this must be the highest quality made Australian film I've seen. Tense, doesn't reach too far into the unbelievable and a bunch of amusing characters too. Loved it.
I'm one of the weird ones that actually really like this movie. I can't help it. It mesmerized me when I was a child, and it still does something profound to me when I watch it as an adult.
But is it a good movie? Not in the slightest!! I've now watched it in glorious 4k (the Arrow release, if anyone wondered), and its shortcomings are even more profound now. To me…that doesn't really matter. I still enjoy Toto's score, I still enjoy the visuals, and as usual, I'm a sucker for Lynches storytelling. Nostalgia is powerful when it comes to movies.
…but it's still not a very good movie, so if you are new to Dune, you are better off watching Denis Villeneuve's attempt on Herbert's masterpiece. That, at least, is a good movie…
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.
The Book of Eli is an excellent film itself and an excellent spin on the post-apocalyptic genre.
As end-of-the-world tales go, this is one worth watching. Denzel Washington's character is lethal and mysterious and his mission is as noble as they come. You understand right from the beginning that he's required to save the world. You can compare him to Mad Max in the "Road Warrior", but he's not in it for himself.
It's great to see Jennifer Beals in something successful besides "Flashdance" and Gary Oldman is the best in the business. He's great in everything he appears in. There is a lot of violence here and some better than average fight scenes. The film's look is impressive with it's exceedingly grainy visuals and gray, dingy palette. A big deal was made out of the "twist" and the ending of "The Book of Eli". Many felt a line was crossed regarding the Christian themes explored. I found it refreshing because mainstream movies don't have the guts or desire to be anything but secular.
This is by all accounts, one of the best sci-fi movies of all time. While the second is still an amazing film in its own right, it just didn't quite top this masterful mix of tension and atmosphere.
I've always liked T2 over this since I was a kid for obvious reasons. But coming back has been a change in perspective and appreciation for such a game-changing movie. The perfect representation of how going into a movie blind is so beneficial to put you in the character's position. The choice to make it so vague and let us as the audience figure out the reasoning behind the chaos as the story progresses is astounding in its craftsmanship. Little to no exposition is given until we are told the sole answer we have been asking after these characters have been established. The visuals and character nuances give us pieces of the puzzle to what the plot is before we are informed. It's one of the reasons this film is a staple of sci-fi, but there are so many more.
I could rattle them all off like how the score is amazing, the acting from both the lead actors are fantastic, and how the concept is terrifyingly becoming more a reality. Not to mention how the fear for AI could be applied to any technology we develop. However, everyone else has already said these things, and I recommend this film to anyone who hasn't seen it yet. It's a great stand-alone piece and is deepened by its first sequel (While T3 isn't great, the ending is still something to admire).
For a film considered by many to be outshined by its successor, I say that the original is still the best.
10/10
I do not understand the positive reviews of this film, for me it is a mish-mash without any logic and when I was watching it, it was really hard for me not to wonder what drugs the filmmakers took :( I am currently reading Malory's "Le Morte'd Arthur" and the film is not faithful to this book but rather there are significant changes which cannot be reasonably explained. There are lots of scenes with knights riding around without any particular purpose, as if the filmmakers did not know what to do with the characters. There are some gratuitous and explicit sex scenes. The only interesting thing was the relationship between Morgana and Merlin, in which he kind of mentors her like he taught Nimue and has some fatherly feelings towards her, but she eventually betrays him just like Nimue did by imprisoning him in a cave.
Sadly, this didn’t really do anything for me. It’s a shame as it had promise and I love the main actor Will Patton.
It reminded me of one of my favourite horror films ‘The Descent’ and also towards the end from another favourite of mine the ‘Alien’ franchise. This isn’t a good thing as they couldn’t hold a light to either films.
Overall, still watchable and not terrible, but nothing to shout about. I’m disappointed :(
By the way. I don't agree with the critic. The movie starts with a scene near the end and then jumps back to how it all started. Works for me.
I always like a good creature feature and what is Hoop-tober without a killer animal? This time we have a rather large Australian Crocodile hunting a bunch of tourists. I enjoyed the opening with some beautiful shots of nature in Australia, we are also getting to know our set of tourists (one of them is Mia Wasikowska!) and we even see a painted Crocodile on a wall!
At some point instead of going back the set of tourists and their guide Kate (Radha Mitchell) wander off to check out a flare being shot in the air. And like in typical horror fashion they should not have done that! Not at all! The Crocodile slowly shows up and starts stalking and haunting the group of tourist.
What follows is a tension filled hour with some good and bad ideas, a final fight and an ending with more survivors than I anticipated on. But in the end it is a good creature-feature and one we haven't had that much in the past 15 years or so.
If you like Horror movies be sure to check out Greg McLean's Rogue!
Ralph Bakshi adapts J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings as an animated feature film. Co-scripted by Peter S. Beagle, only about half of the three novels are actually covered; from the forming of a fellowship to help Frodo Baggins destroy the Ring of Power to the siege at Helm’s Deep. And this leads to a rather awkward non-conclusion in which the story ends abruptly. The animation is also quite poor, combining rotoscoping with cel drawn animation; creating a bizarre style that’s incredibly distracting. Additionally, the coloring is extremely dark and drab, using a lot of browns and grays. Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings is an interesting attempt to bring Tolkien’s work to the big screen, but it ultimately doesn’t work.
Siskel & Ebert picked on it for starring has been actors but none of these people ever stopped acting. Before this movie came out. This was still a creepy movie.
Even if the original is probably much better.
low expectations going in. expectations confirmed going out. the acting is awful, cliches abound and I laughed out loud when they needed to do their required slow-mo shot. The premise of the story was interesting - they didn't pull it off though.
Serviceable creature feature with pretty fun concept and there's fair amount of mystery enough to hold my attention. I expected a lot worse tbh but it's not that bad. It's a low-budget creature feature so there's going to be some stupid stuff happening and sheer volume of stupid decisions. That's fine with me. Some cool monster suit and I get they want to keep it obscure as long as possible but there are better ways than switching into handheld night vision out of nowhere. Overall a decent watch.
