darkus66

After the hype before the first film came out, I was quite disappointed and wasn't sure I wanted to see the second film. It wasn't a bad film, just not great. However, 2nd one was very good, far better than first film. Characterisation is great and the Grabber becoming a supernatural being fits well. Move over Freddy Krueger. I am sure there will be a number 3 and I hope they put as much effort into it as 2. It's doable that the Grabber doesn't need to be the villain in 3. They have created a supernatural world where there must be all sorts of evil waiting for a chance to come into the corporeal world.

More of the same. That isn't in itself bad. I love the chaos and multiple enemies. But when there are 1) no improvements; 2) some levels are exactly the same as previous games, that is bad. It should have been called EDF 5.1. They also have not fixed the problem of A.I. allies walking in front of you when you are shooting a rocket launcher, and blowing you up, which is frustrating

Reading that film did not do well, and some of the bad reviews was because of what Liam Neeson said at the time is just ridiculous. I don't usually share views outside of film but my goodness there are some stupid people about. This film is really good. Great action and great what I would call "quiet" jokes, meaning you have to be alert. It felt for me that the film was directed by the likes of Guy Ritchie or Coen Brothers. The film can be enjoyed as simple action/vengeance or absolutely packed with substance. Acting was great, Liam Neeson playing an ordinary bloke whose son is killed. Of course, he decides payback is the answer. Laura Dern is his wife but doesn't have a very big role. The villains have levels and facets rarely seen in film, again, all acted well. No spoilers but the main antagonist has a little son who is just a fascinating and funny character throughout. Well done Nicholas Holmes. Oodles of other supporting characters too many to mention. Arguably, the setting was a character, having a major impact throughout the film. Finally, maybe Mr Neeson should be admired and supported for sharing his past so honestly?

A superior horror that nobody seemed to like but me (again). Done by Shudder I don't believe it ever went to the big screen. Everyone has their own opinion but if this redo had Malachi etc in it, people would moan but if it's different to original, people still moan. Can't please everyone I suppose. Apart from Killer children and corn, film was made very different to the original. Still mystery on what "he who walks" is, but story has great explanation on why the kids and adults were against each other. In fact rather than 2 groups, there are 3 groups in this film, and it makes the interactions, motives etc very interesting in my opinion. I thought the acting was top notch, especially Eden ((the little girl) who was believable in her psychopathic behaviour. I did notice some minor (no pun intended) character children look at the camera but so what, they're children. For what must have been a fairly small budget, the effects were good. Yes, you could tell what was cgi but the effects didn't spoil the film for me (unlike CotC3 when a monster was eating plastic dolls that were supposed to be people). So of course the film was flawed, but definitely worth a watch, or even a buy. I would have given film 3.5 score if I could.

Great film, very different. Story is basically about some kids who gain superpowers. They are mild powers at first.but get stronger as the film progresses. The kids powers seem to affect each other as well. What stands out for me is the acting talent of Alva Brynsmo, who plays an autistic girl in it. The role was so believable that I would have said the actress actually had disabilities. I know there are autistic actors and actresses and I am autistic myself, but although only the autism diagnosis is mentioned in the film the character clearly had a severe learning disability as well. Again, this aspect was played brilliantly by Alva who must have done some intense research for the role. I have worked in the learning disability field for over 25 years and her characterisation was realistic without being mocking. What an actress! For those who like their stories neatly wrapped up, you may struggle as there are lots of unanswered questions you will have to deal with. Just like life really. Finally, this is another film I saw on Channel 4 website. I am wondering if they are purposely putting on films that are hard to get on bluray. I noticed that Antlers was on the site (for a short while) as well, and both films seems to be rare and expensive. Good for you Channel 4 if that is what you are doing.

I wasn't going to bother watching it as audience and critic reviews were so bad. however, my son wanted to so I begrudgingly went. It wasn't as bad as I was expecting, but that doesn't mean it was good. The original Joker film was okay but not good enough to add it to my ever expanding bluray collection. My main criticism of that film was that it was a decent story about a man going insane and killing people, but the Joker content was thrown in to sell tickets. Even though this film has a version of Harley Quinn, I still felt the same. So take the Joker aspect away and it was a decent continuation of the first film. Joker showed the audience that they were watching what was going on in Arthur's mind, not actual reality. This continued in Joker 2 and I thought it was an interesting take on someone with severe mental health problems. The presentation that it was a "musical" illustrates this quite well. Arthur is in full fantasy mode. In summary, the 3 star score reflects that it wasn't bad, but wasn't good either. I have to say the amount of smoking in film really irritated me, but that's a me problem I suppose. And finally, I wasn't expecting the ending. Not sure whether that was a good thing or not.

Oh dear, another film with bad reviews that I loved! This is a foreign language film that I watched dubbed into english. I accept dubbed films often lose some of the authenticity/quality and this one may have been better with subtitles. Film is about a couple that adopt 2 siblings from a nunnery. The children have had a sheltered life but have been brought up in a strict religious environment. How they act in the outside world is the "horror" of the film. In my view, this not a horror in the classic sense. I thought it was more unnerving than scary and the siblings presented as innocent and creepy at the same time. I was certainly absorbed with the film and didn't know what was going to happen next. As the film headed towards its conclusion I had a sense of dread which I think the film intended. My criticism was I was a little let down by the end even though I had not predicted it. Great film. I recommend watching it without talkative mates. Absorb the atmosphere and make your own mind up about it.

Never heard of the film but found it on Film 4. Read the synopsis and thought I would give it a go. Basically a vampire film set in Ireland, described as a horror comedy. I am usually wary of Horror comedies as they try to be Shaun of the Dead and rarely work. However, I really enjoyed it. I like "classical" vampires but also original ideas which is what this film has. Great original take on the fanged ones. My only criticism is nitpicking, which is sometimes the comedy element didn't mix well with the horror, and changed the pace of the film. But, the pluses far outweigh any (in my opinion) faults. I absolutely recommend a watch.

Didn't like it much and I like to think I can watch just about anything and be entertained. I thought the music and one-liners were completely of place but that wasnt the worst. As I was watching, I knew it reminded me of something, and eventually it hit me. It was like a film version of the video tape in Ring. Just one weird, disjointed scene after another. Who knows, maybe I have to recommend the film to someone within a week or Sadako will crawl out of the screen and get me. I do think the odds were stacked against this film. I never saw a preview (and I go to the cinema just about weekly), it was the smallest screen at cinema, and only on for a week. Although I didn't like film, it is unfair that the box office takings will be low because of the above, and clearly in these reviews there are a number of people that really liked it.

I absolutely loved this film and am doing the review after just watching it. It's an Indonesian subtitled film and would likely be enjoyed even more by those from the native country as there was some cultural and translation bits that I didn't understand. Film was heavily influenced by Evil Dead with a smattering of Hellraiser, Prince of Darkness, and J-Horror. Now, I do have some criticisms but they are picky because as I said, I loved it. Firstly, there were a few very amateurish scenes that stuck out and did distract me from the flow of the film. Secondly (and mainly), the film presented as one "fright" scene after another, and the glue that should have held 2 scenes together was often missing. Rarely for a film, I would say it needed more filler. It could have been spread between 2 or 3 films (or even a tv series) with far more story put in. There could have been more characters introduced (and killed) and I think having more build up scenes would have made the film more harrowing. I notice there was a sequel made called "May the devil take you too" and I will definitely watch that and see what else the director has done. Not sure how Hollywood would do if a remake was to happen. They often do very poorly when it comes to foreign films, but if they did it right it could be one of the best horrors ever!