ryanward-45039 Reviews

The Wolf Man (1941)

A decent chiller and fun monster movie.

[7/10 · 19 July 2023]

We jumped from the 1930s golden age to the 1940s silver age with the introduction to universal's latest monster movie star Lon Chaney Jr. That's right the son of the universal monsters from the 1920s and following in his father's footsteps he took on one of the greatest monsters of all time with the werewolf in The Wolf Man.

When his brother dies, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney) returns to Wales and reconciles with his father (Claude Rains). While there, he visits an antique shop and, hoping to impress Gwen (Evelyn Ankers), the attractive shoe keeper, buys a silver walking cane. That same night he kills a wolf with it, only to later learn that he actually killed a man (Bela Lugosi). A gypsy (Maria Ouspenskaya) explains that it was her son, a werewolf, that he killed, and that Larry is now one himself.

This is another Universal monster film I was introduced to recently through the following cineplex Halloween double features with the Mummy showing first and to be honest compared to the first three this one is a little bit more redundant to watch, but I still consider the wolf man to be one of the best monsters in Universal's library and a classic like all the rest and given this was made a decade after the Mummy in 1941, you can tell that Universal's production values really improved since the 30s.

Lonzini Jr now follows the footsteps of his father and definitely shows the utmost respect for him taking on the wolf man. It's easy to tell he's learned from the best of both worlds of acting and from his father's side and the makeup that was applied to him. His performance is Larry as tragic and sympathetic, but as the beast of the night, he's a terrifying monster and creature design is fantastic. Chaney would play the role many times later in sequels and crossovers with other monsters. Bringing the continuity of the entire universal monster catalog into question.

The film was a smash hit in 1941 and actually brought new life to the universal monster movies including re-releases of all the iconic classics of the 30s which eventually led the wolf man joining the lineup of sequels all throughout the 40s featuring crossovers with the Frankenstein monster and Dracula among others. It's complex, but fun to watch as a whole.

Overall, The Wolf Man while a little bit of a pass for me is a decent chiller and a fun monster movie. It's not as impact for me as Dracula or Frankenstein, but it's still a decent watch. So I'm going to give it a good 7.4/10

It's a decent set and worth a fetch once in a while.

The Mummy (1932)

A third absolute classic Universal monster.

[9/10 · 18 July 2023]

We have gone from the Transylvania vampires to the monsters of Germany. Now we enter the pyramids of Egypt with 1932's The Mummy starring the always lovable Frankenstein Boris Karloff.

During a British museum sponsored archaeological expedition to Egypt led by Sir Joseph Wimple (Arthur Bryan), the team discover a mummy and a highly built sarcophagus which holds the high priest Immotep played by Boris Karloff, who comes to life and walks into the desert night after being accidentally summoned from the dead. Ten years later a new expedition led by Sir Joseph's son Frank Wemble played by Dracula hero David Manners finds the tomb of Princess Anax and a moon immotep's lost love, but when the Mummy returns, no pun intended fully formed in human flesh and blood. He discovers his love's coffin being placed in a museum and kills anyone in his path. In order to revive her completely, Immotep requires Helen Grosvere (Zeta Joanne) to die for him in a ritual sacrifice so he can revive her and make her a living mummy like himself due to her being the reincarnation of an axon a moon.

Well this one is an interesting take. Obviously some of this plot very similar to the Brendan Fraser movies most notably the first 1999 film.

Which it is, but while i enjoy the remake. I gotta say that the original has a lot of greatness and glory on par with those films and is worth a high praise up there Dracula and Frankenstein. A lot of people seem to pass on the Mummy either for the remake or that compared to the other monsters is a tad weaker. But I beg to differ because I actually do love the original incarnation that Boris Karloff brought to the table as he did with Frankenstein's monster.

The mummy in this film definitely has a master plan up his bandage sleeves, but in this film you actually feel sorry for him and actually want him to succeed. He's not trying to rule the world or cause massive amounts of death, he just wants his love back and to live a happy life with her.

Hence why the film is regarded as a love story that's lasted for thousands of years and Karloff has since improved following Frankenstein along with Jack Pierce's amazing makeup which I've heard Karloff was much more comfortable in.

As much as I like the last two films, universal brings back some favorites with of course Edward Van Sloan and David Matters in their heroic parts while David Matters is a totally different character in context, I'm still on team Edward for this one as playing a different character, but undercover is the monster hunter himself Van Helsing.

Overall The Mummy is a great bone chiller and makes for a good third member of the Universal monster club. Boris Karloff and the cast once again do a fantastic job. The sets are vastly bigger than before, the story is both scary and romantic and if you're the type who enjoy the Frasier films, maybe this one isn't for you for its slower pace, but if you want to see where the Mummy genre began, it's a good education for film buffs and gets a chilling 9.2/10

So grab some popcorn and a soft drink and wrap yourself up for a chilling night with the Mummy.

Frankenstein (1931)

It's Alive! It's Alive! It's Alive!

[9/10 · 17 July 2023]

And now we'll be taking a look at the second iconic monster in the universal franchise with the scientifically created monster of Germany coming out the exact same year as Dracula. This one of course starring Boris Karloff in his iconic roles simply known as "Frankenstein"

Dr Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) wants to build a man in his own image. Using the body of the dead and his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) dig up freshly buried coffins and hanging man, when they realize the head of the brains of the bodies are severely damaged, they decide to steal the brain from Dr Frankenstein's former teacher Dr Waldman (Edward Van Sloan). When Fritz accidentally drops the jar with the label good brain, he decides to take the jar with the label bad brain. Using some kind of mysterious ray that Dr Frankenstein discovered, the body is brought to life during a thunderstorm and the monster of Frankenstein played by legendary horror icon Boris Karloff is born. Frankenstein is conflicted to either study the monster or destroy it to save himself and live a normal life with his fiancée (May Clark), but when the monster breaks loose on the towns of Germany. Frankenstein must face his creation and suffer the consequences of playing God to create a monstrous apparition of nature.

Now much like their cinema rivalry and pop culture, how does the monster of Germany compare to the monster of Transylvania? Well as much as I prefer Dracula, Frankenstein as a film is equal and on par with the great counts. My earliest experience with Frankenstein was more so watching several cartoons and media which parodied the film. I knew of the monster for years, but never really caught on to the original film until I first saw it in the cinemas back to back with Dracula and to be honest at the time I actually found it to be the weakest of the two, but over time with more viewings on turner classic movies during the Halloween season.

Speaking of which, let's talk about the monster and no I'm not calling him Frankenstein! That's the name of the doctor! Get it right people! Much like Bela Lugosi's Dracula, the Frankenstein monster is equally as iconic as one of the greatest horror images of all time, created by makeup artist Jack Pierce's Oscar-worthy makeup and horror icon Boris Karloff whose physical acting as the monster is both terrifying and sympathetic.

The film wasn't directed by Todd Browning of Dracula, but instead James Whale, another mainstay in the horror genre. Speaking of Dracula, Bela Lugosi was instantly offered the role of the monster after playing the iconic vampire, but he didn't really care for it due to be covered in makeup and little to no dialogue and to be honest that was a bold choice because then Karloff would not be as famous as he is today and the rivalry between the two would never have happened. Even though they were best friends in real life.

Unfortunately over the years, the movie suffered massive censorship due to the motion picture association's policies around 1938. Several violent scenes and dialogue depicting sac religious tones were cut from the film and thought to have been lost for years, but only with DVD and Blu-Ray releases have they been restored a hundred percent.

Now once again I haven't read original novel by Mary Shelly, but from what I'd gathered this film and its more successful sequel Bride of Frankenstein are decent adaptations of Shelley's work and still remain the famous incarnations of the book to date. Not to mention one of the most iconic horror films of all time, especially for universal. Who still celebrates the film's legacy with merchandise cereal and even attractions at Universal theme parks, seeing the recreated Frankenstein laps in the universal house of horrors maze made me appreciate all the work in creating those sets in the original films.

Overall, Frankenstein is a classic beyond measure, paving the way for later incarnations and creating some of the most iconic tropes in the horror genre. The sets are absolutely spectacular, the makeup by Jack Pierce is outstanding for 1931. The cast is brilliant and the cinematography along with the sound design really improved over Dracula a few months prior. If you're a horror fan and a classic movie buff, this is a film to really add to your collection coming in at a monster sized 9/10.

While it's one point lower than Dracula, it's still a great movie in a classic horror film that we owe a lot of thanks for in creating a pop culture icon. Dr Victor Frankenstein might have made a mistake in playing God, but we of course appreciate it for all it brought to the lab table.

"It's Alive!" "In The Name Of God!" "I Know What It Feels Like To Be God!"

Dracula (1931)

I am Dracula!

[9/10 · 16 July 2023]

The Universal Studios monsters were and still are the greatest. These guys pretty much created horror genre all the way to universal city was founded in 1912 by Carl Lemley. So we should take a look at the first sound horror movie starring Bela Lugosi with the iconic film simply known as Dracula.

After a harrowing ride through the Carpathian Mountains in East Europe, Reinfield played by Dwight Frye enters Castle Dracula to finalize the transferral of carfax abbey in London to the mysterious Count Dracula played by the legendary Bela Lugosi who turns out to be mythical sinister and terrifying vampire. Reinfield was drugged by the eerie hypnotic count and turned into one of his thralls. Protecting him during a sea voyage to London. After sucking the blood and turning the young lady Lucy Weston played by Francis Dade into a vampire herself. Dracula turns his attention to her friend Mina Stewart played by Helen Chandler, daughter of psychiatrist Dr Seward played by Herbert Bunstin who concerned then calls the specialist Dr Van Helsing played by the great gentleman actor Edward Van Sloan to diagnose the sudden decline of Mina's heath. It's up them to stop Dracula from turning Mina into of the undead vampire.

So how does the first sound horror movie stack up today? Well as much as I'm not as knowledgeable of vampires let alone Dracula as of late. It's hard to disagree that this film is an absolute classic and one of universal's finest pictures. My first experience with the film was actually quite recently a few years ago when cineplex held a double feature of the original Dracula and Frankenstein.

Now Bela Lugosi was wow the greatest vampire. The cape, the suit, the movement, the chilling gentlemanic accent. He owns the part with such pride and professionalism and it's a chilling performance all around. There's just something about him that shows signs not to be around him. He may come off ya decent gentleman of Transylvania, but when you stare into his hypnotic eyes, you're trapped in his web of deception and desire to control you. Not to mention a desire for your own human blood.

Overall, Dracula is a horror classic and deservingly so it gave and inspired so much for the genre with its set's cinematography and iconic characters with Bela Lugosi leading the flight on leather bat wings. Creating the most iconic visual interpretation of Dracula and the vampire to date and for that it's getting a good 9.1/10.

Geri's Game (1997)

Move over Up, we have an old man playing chess!

[10/10 · 15 June 2023]

Geri's Game was the first post-Toy Story short made by PIXAR and was the first to have a human protagonist. It won the 1997 Academy Award for Best Animated Short and was the first PIXAR short to be released alongside a PIXAR feature, with A Bug's Life (1998).

In it we see an old man named Geri play a game of chess by himself, and plays as different characters with sharp contrast, differentiated by the color of the chess pieces. He doesn't sat much but he does laugh at himself while playing it, and since chess is a game of wits, he fakes a heart attack so he flip the board around and checkmates the other Geri, and the other Geri hands over his dentures and Geri with the glasses on smiles, the camera pans back and it turns out there was only one Geri the whole time.

This short I really find to be one of their best early works because PIXAR had previously used inanimate objects to come to live and now they were capable of animating human beings and not make them look too plastic. I really like this old man can play chess without a real opponent and Geri reminded me of my grandfather who was like the ultimate chess champion and won tournaments for over 30 years by outsmarting his opponents. A very timeless game and a very timeless animated short that all ages will enjoy. And yes, Geri would later return as the cleaner guy in Toy Story 2 that fixed Woody and was given more dialogue. Recommend!

10/10.

We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story (1993)

A somewhat interesting, but very animated movie about talking dinosaurs in NYC.

[6/10 · 5 June 2023]

In 1993, the movie industry saw the huge success of Jurassic Park, which was a landmark film that brought dinosaurs back to life, and used very convincing early CGI mixed in with some practical effects. The film also was Steven Spielberg's biggest movie and people including kids ate it up at the box office.

It tells the story of four dinosaurs, a Tyrannosaurus Rex named Rex, a Triceratops Woog, a Pteranodon Elsa and a Parasurolophus Tweeb who travel to the present day and become intelligent by eating a "Brain Grain" cereal invented by Captain Neweyes.

With the running time of 72 minutes, this flick moves at a brisk speed. It has to introduce the protagonist kids, Louie, the street wise tough kid, with a soft side just dying to get out, and Cecila, the girl with the same voice as Lisa Simpson, who has little personality aside from being the love interest. The dinosaurs have to be introduced, including how they become smart and nice, and what they're doing in New York City, and who brought them here. It has to scare the little kids with the evil Dr. Screweyes, a circus ringmaster who has a screw for an eye (hence the name), and fears the dark. It has a pretty interesting concept, but I have to say the execution is rather weak, considering that the dinosaurs gain intelligence and we do get some backstory, but they are treated to helping kids and help stop a bad guy, all the while making a few pop-culture references, a Disney-style musical number, having them set in New York City, and having slapstick and a chase scene that feels like kiddie filler. Oh and some characters voiced by celebrities. The pacing is rushed and a deleted scene or two where it would give a little more backstory especially with the reason why Screweyes lost his eye and had a fascination for fear.

The animation is quite good in the film, though not as good as Disney animation was at the time. The human characters are a bit closer to being realistic while the dinosaurs (mostly) look cartoony that is when they are not savage, and kind of makes them feel a little out of place, kind of like how The Good Dinosaur had cartoony dinosaurs in a realistic looking environment. The characters are of likable, but aren't as memorable as say The Land Before Time characters, and I kind of like how the T-Rex was named Rex and this was before Toy Story so the Rex name wasn't too cliched at the time. The kids though are pretty bland and their designs, actions, dialogue and personalities really reflect on when this made. The story is strange, involving rival brothers, Captain Neweyes, and Professor Screweyes. Neweyes created a cereal to make the dinosaurs less realistic and more cartoony, and Screweyes have invented pills that reverses the effect, which works on any being (including humans). I think this movie should have been more about the two brothers and how they grew up and why they became such geniuses. Instead, it's more on the cartoony dinosaurs plus a romance between two generic kids. I head this was base on a children's book but I haven't had the time to have read it so I can't make any comparison.

I say that this is a good film to show to kids or to yourself if you like animation or dinosaurs, and since this is a mostly forgotten film from the early 1990's, it has to be seen to be believed, and this film is sort of a guilty pleasure for me, and I don't hate it but it does have it's shortcomings. The animation is pretty good, but not too good, the story is kind of phoned in and has an interesting concept that was never utilized and the characters were mostly bland and played safe.

6/10.

The Little Mermaid (1989)

This Disney Classic Still Remains Part Of Your World..

[9/10 · 2 June 2023]

The Walt Disney Company released their feature-film adaptation of the Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale, The Little Mermaid. Made at a time when the animation studio was in a huge rut, this along with Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the boost of morale brought them back to their glory days with a whole decade known as their Renaissance era. To this day, it remains one of their most recognizable commodities, spawning a TV series, a sequel and a prequel.

If you were to ask me what my first movie that I ever watched was, it was The Little Mermaid. I had the 1998 VHS for years until we sold our tapes for money (actually I lost this one), and I watched the 2006 special edition DVD. I currently own the Walt Disney Signature Collection Blu-Ray of this Masterpiece.

The story follows a young mermaid named Ariel, who wants to become part of the human world after falling in love with a prince named Eric, but learns the tough challenges of steering away from her own undersea life. While this story sounds weak on paper, the execution more than makes up for it. Due to the film being told in the style of a broadway musical, it's emotional core feels incredibly strong and personal with its characters. The musical numbers by the great Howard Ashman and Alan Menken come in all shapes and sizes, from "Part of Your World" telling us everything we need to know about Ariel's inner desires, to "Under The Sea" providing us with enough proof as to why the grass was greener on one side, to "Poor Unfortunate Souls" being a cautionary reminder of the consequences to your actions, and "Kiss The Girl" being a harmonious love song on getting with your partner. These songs, along with the wonderful performances from Jodi Benson, Samuel E. Wright, Kenneth Mars, Buddy Hackett and Pat Carroll, help give the story an identity that no Disney film prior had in years: musical narrative. It features outstanding animation: Brilliant colors and beautiful scenes, along with interesting characters and amazingly good songs. I believe this movie is very worthwhile. The only thing to mention, is that is loosely based upon the story by Hans Christian Andersen.

Ariel's my most favorite character and my second favorite Disney princess aside from Belle from Beauty and The Beast. She's a kind, brave, fun-loving and open-minded individual, but she can also be very stubborn and shortsighted. Throughout the film, she ignored her, father Flounder and Sebastian's warnings about humans being dangerous. But she's still the best character in the film.

With highly memorable songs, magical animation, and a message on finding your purpose that anyone can relate to, Disney's The Little Mermaid holds up just as well as its big splash in 1989. There are many films that change cinema forever, and this was one of them for putting the House of Mouse back in the spotlight that they've kept since then. Even if it's not their real crowning achievement in film-making and storytelling, it set the bar that most of their movies since then would keep trying to get up to for over three decades, and we have the magic of Broadway and emotional resonance to thank for that. It is a complete classic and is up near the top of the list in my mind of the Renaissance Disney films near Aladdin, The Lion King and Beauty and The Beast.

9/10.

The Cat in the Hat (1971 TV Movie)

The best Dr. Seuss TV special!

[10/10 · 2 May 2023]

I absolutely loved this classical Dr. Seuss television special and I even read the book a lot of times when I was a kid. I'm a huge fan of the Dr. Seuss books over the years and loved it. Anyway, since being a huge fan of the 1966 animated Christmas classic How The Grinch Stole Christmas, I was looking forward to The Cat In The Hat, and prayed it would be better than the live action film with Mike Myers which it was absolutely awful. The animation is great and colorful. The characters are drawn very well. I even loved the music, the music is delightful enough, but the songs are catchy and memorable. Allan Sherman is perfect as the Cat and the fish is a one funny character.

Overall, The Cat In The Hat is an amazing, awesome and lovable Dr. Seuss special. With great characters, catchy songs and clever jokes. This is even an absolute masterpiece.

A solid 10/10.

Peter Pan & Wendy (2023)

Lame and boring trip to Neverland.

[4/10 · 1 May 2023]

Disney continues to trend of remaking their animated movies in live-action and like so many people I see this as lazy and uninspiring, funny that is coming from a studio that was super creative and very influential to the animation industry but nowadays its seen a joke. And now since we have two live-action remakes in the span of a month now it should not shock you that Disney is remaking these in order to make money and use imagination as they still going to these in the future. Now they have made a movie I thought was going to be the better of the two movies this year, that because I know that The Little Mermaid is going to suck, but after watching this on DisneyPlus, I can see that this just something to put on and entertain the kids, but even the parents and the kids would be bored by this one since this one left NO impression on me or anyone in the family.

Wendy Darling (Ever Anderson), a young English girl is afraid to leave her childhood home behind, who meets Peter Pan (Alexander Molony), a boy who refuses to grow up. Alongside her brothers John and Micheal and Peter's fairy friend, Tinker Bell (Yara Shahid), she travels with Peter to the magical world of Neverland. There, Wendy encounters an evil pirate captain, Captain Hook (Jude Law), and embarks on a dangerous adventure that will change her life forever.

As a fan of both the original animated film and the beloved play and a fan of a few other adaptations including the 2003 version and Hook, Peter Pan seems to be another disappointment added to Disney's list of remakes.

The boy who played Peter Pan is uninterested and can't amount to anything the original Pan did, the actress playing Wendy wasn't even holding a candle to the original and the two leads despite sharing the film's title do not have any chemistry. The effects are kind of bland, especially the music. But they do end up having an instrumental version of "You Can Fly" from the original.

All and all, Peter Pan and Wendy is just a dull and boring waste of my time and it comes across as a snoozefest and even my family says that they have had it with Disney live-action remakes, but it's still not over yet. It is not the definitive version of the timeless story by J. M. Barrie, nor it is the best version of the story put to the film. If you want to a film that captured the original story Watch A. Disney's classic Peter Pan, B. The 2003 version which is a much better remake, or C. Watch Hook. They're all better than this rehash. And while it's not the worst Peter Pan movie, that bring 2015's Pan, it's another unnecessary remake that people will never forget about as they watch it.

4/10.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Why so serious?

[10/10 · 2 April 2023]

Christopher Nolan's second bundle of joy The Dark Knight EXCEEDED all of my expectations!!! With the success of 2005's reboot of the Batman franchise, they took what was already established and expanded it, amped it up, and gave a deeper, darker and brooding story that is more gripping and the suspense is likely to catch you of guard several times throughout. Christian Bale delves more deeper into Batman, sworn to fight evil and injustice, through also quite reluctant and uncertain if his crusade can ever end and cleanse his inner turmoil from his fractured soul due to the murder of his beloved parents. But with the help of his trusted butler/ally Alfred (played superbly by Micheal Caine) grounds him, gives him moral support, and keeps him in check. But the real star of the show is Heath Ledger as Batman's most deadly enemy, The Joker. I can honestly tell you that: as good as Jack Nicholson was in the 1989 Batman film, he is nothing compared to this Joker. He is sadistic, psychotic, and downright SCARIER and PSYCHOLOGICALLY disturbing than the previous incarnation of The Clown Prince Of Crime and Ledger gives it his all to do him justice. Along with the original cast comes some fresh faces such as Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal and more. As much as Katie Holmes was good in the last film, Maggie Gyllenhaal gives a much better performance and is a far cry from the "damsel-in-distress" stereotype (though there's a little of it, THANKFULLY) that's common in super-hero films. Bale and Gyllenhaal have vastly improved and feature more brutal and bone crushing combat than Begins in addition to new technology at Batman's disposal. Also worth mentioning is screenwriter Jonathan Nolan, who gives the film an added frosting to an already delicious cake. Simply put, The Dark Knight is totally more awesome than any previous installment of the Batman franchise. The action is great, and the plot is more deeper and engrossing. I applaud Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, and especially Heath Ledger (who sadly passed away right before the film was released) and all those aboard for believing in Mr. Nolan's talents for this second installment. Although some may feel a bit of melancholy over Ledger's death, but as a final note I will say this sincerely from my heart: Remember Heath Ledger and honor him in your minds and hearts not only for his performances, but as a human being and father to his daughter Matilda Ledger. Remember... Horror him not only for this role and past roles, but as an incredible individual and talented actor. Rest in Peace.

I couldn't believe The Dark Knight could live up to the hype. That's perhaps the biggest surprise. The secret, I believe, is a stunning, mature, intelligent script. As a ninth-grader when this came out, it was something to behold. That makes it one of the best superhero movies ever made. As if that wasn't enough, Heath Ledger. He, the newest of the tragic modern icons present us with a preview of something we'll never see. A fearless, extraordinary actor capable to fill up with humanity even the most grotesque of villains. His performance is a master class. Fortunately, Christian Bale's Batman is almost a supporting character. Bale is good but there is something around his mouth that stops him from being great. The Dark Knight is visually stunning, powerful and moving. What else could anyone want. It's easily on par with 2019's Joker and Heath Ledger's posthumous Oscar-winning role as the Joker was ever so great that it rivals Joaquin Phoenix's performance. Though I honestly think this is even better.

10/10.

Batman Begins (2005)

Refreshing to see the return of the Dark Knight.

[9/10 · 1 April 2023]

Absolutely nailed. Blasted out the park. A grand slam. The re-introduction to Batman after the disastrous Batman and Robin had people running to the movie theater to see their favorite DC superhero dressed in black.

Batman is a persona that was created to inspire fear into the hearts of criminals. A creature of the night that hunts from the shadows, strikes without warning, and vanishes into the darkness like a nightmare. The character is never meant to be seen by the general public, he is merely meant to exist in their whispers, an urban myth that is talked about in hushed tones throughout Gotham City.

Christian Bale gives us a Batman that will scare the living daylights out of you. His voice is a gravelly, menacing sound, and when he yells at some poor schmuck to get some information, it's downright terrifying. He swoops out of darkened alleys, hitting fast and furious. He's brutal, cold, and calculating. In short, he's everything that anybody who ever put that cape and cowl on is not. Perfection. Some say he's better than Micheal Keaton, and he's much better than George fricking Clooney.

The villains are also amazing, but a huge part of their contributions to the overall brilliance of the film is their failure to dominate it. The previous Batman movies were plagued by these cackling idiots in ludicrous costumes who pushed Batman to the back burner. In Batman Begins, we finally get to spend some time with the hero, learning who he really is behind the mask.

Christopher Nolan and his crew did a job well done. If you are moderately interested in Batman, perhaps enjoyed the Burton films but was appalled with Schumacher's take on the series, you will love Batman Begins for its return to the darker, more serious side of Batman. If you are, however, a true Batman fan (by that I mean you have your share of Bat comics and genuinely appreciate the character), this film will blow your mind.

9.5/10.

Scream VI (2023)

Ghostface Takes Manhattan!

[8/10 · 12 March 2023]

So with the latest installment of the Scream franchise, we finally have Ghostface who follows in Jason Voorhees' footsteps as he terrorizes New York City by getting revenge on the survivors of the previous movie, that being Scream (2022).

Set in New York City, four survivors of the Ghostface murders leave Woosboro behind for a fresh start. However, they soon found themselves in a fight for their lives when a killer embarks on a bloody rampage.

And that was Scream VI which in my opinion maybe the best Scream film since probably the original.

I'm not kidding when I said that Jenna Ortega and the new Scream gang are better here than in the previous installment because even though I didn't feel like they were fully integrated into the Scream cast yet but they were not that bad, they were in my opinion not as great as the original cast. Here though they have shown that they can carry on this series even without Sidney, Gale or even Wes. Jenna truly developed her A-game between Scream 5 and Scream 6 primarily because she worked on Wednesday, the Addams Family series by Tim Burton and she proves she can take on horror roles very well. And of course who can forget that Roger L. Jackson has done the voice of Ghostface for a little over 25 years now and he's definitely the only person who can do the voice so well and to think he also voiced an evil chimp with a large helmet on his head from PPG.

As for twist, which I will not spoil, is actually a pretty neat and perhaps the biggest reveal since Scream 4's ending, and it shows that in a place like New York City you can get lost and bump into the wrong person. I surely had a good time and the kills are of course more creative this time around and have an increasing amount of gore as these movies go on.

I should mention that I recently saw the new Dead Meat Kill Count on Scream 5 and I was pretty amazed of how the host of that YouTube show who talks about all the kills from horror movies also made a cameo in the last film and is proud of the fact that he even talked to the people on set of that film and i personally would congratulate him actually being part of one of the best slasher film franchises. It's something I missed in the last film but I'm happy to point out here.

So what did you think of Scream 6? Did you see it? Do you plan to see it even with the minor spoilers? Sure it's the first one without Sidney but I think that the new cast can take on the next one just fine. If that is possible. Anyway, goodnight and don't answer if Ghostface appears at your door or answers your phone.

8/10.

Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey (2023)

A big ol' pile of Winnie the Pooh doo.

[2/10 · 17 February 2023]

Let me tell you how much I despise this concept of taking cute or innocent characters and turning them into horror slasher villains. First we had The Banana Splits and then the Grinch horror spoof The Mean One, and now we have Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.

It follows Pooh and Piglet, who have now become feral and bloodthirsty killers and embark on a murderous rampage, terrorizing a group of young university women and an adult Christopher Robin when he returns to the Hundred Acre Wood five years after leaving for college.

And that was Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey and it's just a dumb take on a beloved children's icon and turn him into a psychotic killer.

The acting is awful. The costumes are laughable. The writing is mind-bogglingly lame, the characters we love are just turned into a kid abandoning his best friends just so they can be wild animals and kill people and it just feels like a complete waste of time and talent. The only good things about it was the score and some of the set locations and cinematography. Everything else was weak.

Blood and Honey is the worst kind of horror movie, one devoid of a soul and meaning, it was made for the sake of being for shock value and to get people talking about it in the hopes it got an ironic appeal out of it. Well, succeeded in that first half but failed at the second, there's no ironic enjoyment to be found here, it's just that bad. Just watch the Disney movies and TV shows centered on Pooh or read the timeless books by A. A. Milne instead.

2/10.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

Incoherent campy fun.

[6/10 · 14 February 2023]

This movie has its merits. It's good campy fun and director Ronny Yu gives us some visuals that are extremely cool to watch at. Any flick that features Jason going up in flames, walking through a corn field, slashing ravers with his machete is fine with me.

But seriously, at times Yu manages to make this camp fest look awesome. There's a fight scene close to the end where Jason and Freddy beat up each other at a construction site by night which is hilarious and almost iconic.

The movie knows what it is, never takes itself seriously, gives fans of the genre a better time than most of the predecessors of both franchises.

The plot (Freddy is almost forgotten by people so he sends Jason to Elm Street hoping that people will think that Jason's rampage is Freddy's work so he can nourish on their fear) is ludicrous but as the set up allows it to be.

Nevertheless, even from a movie like this it's not too much to ask for some coherence within itself and within the franchises. From that point of you, much can be held against it.

First of all, Freddy slays teenagers, as he doesn't kill adults. (He does so in Part 7: Freddy's New Nightmare, but this movie was meant rather as a satire than a legit part of the mythology). But there's a crucial back story in FvJ that Freddy kills the mother of the protagonist - clearly a violation of the Nightmare-myth.

When Freddy enters the teenager's dreams, they are asleep. They don't actually walk around doing stuff, they are laying somewhere, sleeping. Funnily enough, at the convenience of the plot, sometimes they're actually doing what they're in their doing in their dreams, and sometimes - if it's not convenient for the plot - they don't. (Consider the scene where Freddy is spilling the hypnocil, clearly a dream sequence, but he's actually doing it).

Some fight scenes, as hilarious as they are, don't make sense in a physical way. Sometimes they couldn't decide whether one person was standing up or lying down. The distance between two spots can obviously vary. It takes them a minute to go from A to B, but only seconds to be back. Of course you can blame it all on bad editing, but somehow i don't think that it it's that.

However, in spite of all these flaws, I've watched the movie 20 times and it still entertains. I would love a sequel, but I don't think it's going to happen.

6/10.

New Nightmare (1994)

Freddy's Back!

[6/10 · 13 February 2023]

I've heard this is the best Nightmare on Elm Street sequel and some even called it better than the original Nightmare film. I can't say It's any of those things, but New Nightmare is one of the better movie in one of my favorite horror movie franchises and a refreshing entry after the terrible Freddy's Dead. New Nightmare departs from Springwood, Ohio and instead takes place in the "real" world. Heather Langenkamp, the actress who played Nancy in the original film, is now a married mother, and she is contacted by Wes Craven to be in the definitive final Nightmare on Elm Street film. However, Heather has been having increasingly terrifying nightmares and phone calls that sound suspicious like the films' iconic villain, Freddy Krueger. Her son's disturbing behavior also leads her to believe that the script that Wes is writing may not be just another movie. Arguably the best part about New Nightmare is all the nods and winks to the original film sprinkled in there. The phone gag from the first one is in there (which I admit still scared the living daylight out of me), and a majority of the deaths are reminiscent of other deaths in the series, particularly Tina's infamous death from the first movie and the motorcycle kill from The Dream Child. Wes Craven and Robert Englund also make cameo appearances in the film, although their subplots just sort of fizzle out towards the end. I also wasn't a big fan of Freddy trying to get a hold of Heather's son. The "creepy kid" scenes don't really unsettle me and instead came off as hammy. But Wes obviously had a lot of fun with New Nightmare and ended the series with a clever take on the slasher film that would be replicated in the future with Scream. Personally, Dream Warriors will always be my favorite Nightmare sequel, but New Nightmare is a fun and sporadically scary slasher flick.

6/10.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

They DID NOT save the best for last (and it's not even the FINAL nightmare).

[2/10 · 12 February 2023]

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, the sixth installment of the Nightmare on Elm Street series and once again another bad sequel. I think this is tied up with the last sequel of the Dream Child. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street series box DVD set for my birthday, so i got to see all the sequels. May I say that I'm just getting more and more disappointed though with these sequels, at least the past two, it seems like Freddy lost his edge. It's almost like the writers were trying to give Freddy a soul and they're just destroying it instead of reinventing the story. This was a sequel that wasn't needed, sorry to Robert Englund, but this was very much below what Freddy Krueger represents.

Freddy is back, but he's got something we don't know about, a daughter. Maggie, she's not aware that he is her father, but soon finds out what his dark secrets are and he wants her help. She has to do her best to resist his powers, but it's hard with all the good memories she was of her loving father. Ironic, isn't it? But Freddy isn't giving up without manipulating her into ways.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is also presented in 3-D radical, huh? Note that sarcasm. This is one of the worst sequels, it's tied up with the fifth sequel of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, I'd rather watch the second Nightmare on Elm Street to be honest. This just had bad acting, stupid ending, and just over all a bad idea for a story. I didn't like the concept of it and it just ruined the whole of who Freddy Krueger really is, the death master of nightmares, not Father Knows Best.

2/10.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989)

The Dream Child!

[3/10 · 11 February 2023]

The original A Nightmare on Elm Street is still to me one of the scariest and best horror films there is, as well as a truly great film in its own right and introduced us to one of the genre's most iconic villains in Freddy Krueger. It is always difficult to do a sequel that lives up to a film as good as A Nightmare on Elm Street let alone one to be the same level.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child is one just of the weakest sequels in the A Nightmare on Elm Street film series. It is such a big disappointment after being so impressed by the surprising good previous two sequels (was also underwhelmed by the second film, which to me is actually marginally better than this one). The third film in particular being the best sequel by far if not quite on the same level as the original, a very difficult feat.

The Dream Child is not unwatchable by all means. The music score is still hauntingly ominous, the scariest that the film gets is by listening to the music and it is sad that most of the rest of the film doesn't match it in effectiveness. Robert Englund's material is beneath him, but that doesn't stop him from giving it his all and giving a freaky performance.

Production design is the most dream-like the film ever gets and has moments of being nightmarish, just wish that one can appreciate it more because the way it's photographed and edited doesn't do it justice. A couple of the deaths are cool, though there is nothing inspired or creepy here.

However, The Dream Child is an example of style over substance and sadly the style is not done very well...at all in one of the worst looking and most self-indulgent-looking films in the series. The production design is undone by an over-reliance on sudden, ambiguous and often misplaced shock cuts and incredibly crude imagery that belongs more in a rock video-like cartoon. This feels like an attempt to compensate for an erratically paved (both rushed and tedious), ridiculous and non-atmospheric story with scares that are unimaginably derivative, too far and between and vapidly tame on the whole.

Apart from Englund as Krueger, the acting is very poor (even Lisa Wilcox isn't anywhere near as winning as in the previous film), with the actors having to work with an awkwardly clunky script and irritating characters that constantly make silly and illogical decisions. Even the humor doesn't work, Freddy's one-liners are more stale and tongue-curlingly groan-worthy than twisted or witty and what was darkly comic before is replaced by an overload of cheese. The direction is largely unimaginative, and only a couple of the deaths are cool, the others are forgettable at the best.

3/10.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

The Dream Master!

[4/10 · 10 February 2023]

Kristen Parker (Tuesday Knight), Roland Kincaid (Ken Sagoes) and Joey Crusel (Rodney Eastman) are having normal lives and studying in Springwood, Ohio, after defeating the evil Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Kristen is very close to her boyfriend Rick Johnson (Andras Jones) and his Alice (Lisa Wilcox) is her best friend. Kristen has a premonition with Freddy Krueger, who has resurrected and is chasing the trio of survivors of the Elm Street. When Freddy kills the three Survivors, Kristen transfers her ability to draw other people to her dreams to Alice, and Freddy uses the power of the teenage to gather the souls or her school friends.

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: The Dream Master is a weak sequel to the classic A Nightmare on Elm Street. Patricia Arquette, who performed Kristen Parker in the previous film. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, was pregnant and not able to film this sequel. The actress and musician Tuesday Knight that replaced Patricia Arquette recorded the song "Nightmare" used during the film's opening credits.

After being buried at the end of Dream Warriors, Freddy Krueger is dead. But not for long. The three survivors from Warriors, who are the last of the dream warriors, are killed when Freddy returns to life, and Kristen is forced to give her dream powers to Alice, one of the new teenagers on the block. Before long Freddy is back in business, killing victims in an explosion of great effects, imaginative sets, atmospheric music and strong direction.

Unfortunately, by the time this film was released, the Nightmare on Elm Street series was no more than a money-making franchise. Freddy was reduced to a wise-cracking joker and the plot of The Dream Master is really no more than a string of set-pieces cemented together. It has to be said the most of the new characters in this film are just irritating (and Kristen's character has completely changed along her appearance).

Watchable if you're a fan of the series, but if you've seen the first three films then you'd be better off watching A New Nightmare or Freddy vs. Jason.

4/10.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

Dream Warriors!

[6/10 · 9 February 2023]

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (thankfully) ignores part 2 and picks up after the events of the first film. Nancy Thompson is now a psychiatrist at a hospital for disturbed children. She ends up discovering that all of the children in her care are not suicidal, but were attacked by Freddy Krueger because they are the last children of the lynch mob that killed him. Nancy ends up teaching the children that they can fight Freddy, because in your dreams you can do what you want. The children form a small army, calling themselves Dream Warriors and set out to take Freddy on. This isn't a perfect movie, but it is a step up from Part 2 which was okay in my book, but this should have been Part 2.

Due to the return of characters Nancy Thompson and her cop father Donald, who is now an alcoholic after the events of the first film, this movie makes a return to what the first movie was all about. The mood and the creepiness return, and Robert Englund plays Freddy the way he's supposed to be played...As a wise cracking maniac. The movie is generally creepy throughout, but unfortunately toward the end it gets a bit silly. The children become king of superheroes in their dreams to fight Freddy, Dungeons and Dragons crap of Freddy. Another silly scene is when Lt. Thompson digs up Freddy's skeleton and it climbs out and starts fighting with him.

Dream Warriors is without a doubt the best Elm Street sequel. The guest 2 dealt with just one remain character against Freddy and everybody else thinking they're crazy. But of course, after a while people start realizing they're all dreaming about Freddy. And if he can use their dreams against them, they can also use their dreams against him. Brilliant!

This is where the deaths became more elaborate and Freddy started to spout out catchy one-liners. A lot of people resent this film for starting the whole 'joker Freddy' trend, but this has just the right amount of Freddy wit to still have him be scary and threatening, which really he is.

This is a reworking upon the first film's plot by screenwriters Wes Craven, Frank Darabont and Chuck Russell. It's one of the best sequels from successful original film by Craven. Special effects by Dream Quest are the spotlight and startling make up by Kevin Yagher. Casting includes a young Patricia Arquette as Kristen Parker, the return of Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), John Saxon as Lt. Thompson, with supporting roles by Zsa Zsa Gabor and Laurence Fishburne.

Give this one a watch and see why this is a better sequel than Freddy's Revenge.

6/10.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Freddy's Revenge!

[5/10 · 8 February 2023]

The opening scene of this film are very promising. The title music has a very sinister, menacing calm quality to it and there is an excellently nightmarish sequence in a school bus which is driven by Freddy.

A lot of people hate Nightmare on Elm Street 2. I am not going one of those. However, I'm also not enough of an adoring fan to ignore the fact that this film suffers a great deal as a result of the absence of Freddy's creator, Wes Craven, who was very adamant about wanting Nightmare to be a one-off horror movie.

But generally the film is a might-have-been. True, it has its moments, such as the discovery of Nancy's diary and the scene at the party, but things are pretty tame compared to the first film. Jesse is the new teenager living in Nancy's old house and haunted by nightmares, but apart from the opening sequence there are very few dreamlike effects. There are some nightmarish animals but they are too briefly seen and are in such total darkness that they're barely visible. The film is more of a cliched haunted house yarn than a story about nightmares. There are some interesting homosexual undertones but they are never really developed properly. There are also gaping plot-holes. After Freddy tears his way out of Jesse's body, the remains somehow return to life. The next time Freddy appears Jesse seems to be inside. Can anyone work out what's going on?

What really lets this film down is its weak ending. Freddy and his boiler room suddenly burst into flames because Jesse's girlfriend tells him she loves him. Utterly feeble. Surely the script-writers could have come up with a better ending than this.

Not an unwatchable film by any means, but just not the sequel it should have been.

5/10.

Back to the Future Part III (1990)

Back to the Old West... Back to the Roots... Back to the Future.

[8/10 · 7 February 2023]

And here comes the conclusion of one of the greatest cinematic trilogies: Back to the Future Part III, more than a sequel, a resourcing in the spirit that made the first film such an endearing classic, with an even more escapist value in the setting, the Far West during the 1880's. As a Sci-Fi family romantic comedy, Back to the Future Part III is already a winner, but the western is the is the defining aspect of its originality.

Even in the best franchise which proved that sequels can be just as good, if not better than the originals, the third parts are fairly controversial. Look no further than to the third entries in The Godfather and the Terminator movies. Back to the Future Part III is no exception to that rule as it clearly is the second part in the trilogy, but it's still one heck of a ride.

Writer/producer Bob Gale and writer/director Robert Zemeckis are two very clever men. They known the difficulties of sequels as well. As Zemeckis explains explains somewhere on the BTTF-DVD set, the hardest part is to give the audience something new without moving too far away from the original's spirit. Back to the Future II achieved that goal gloriously (although Zemeckis is very critical about his own work is always downsizing the greatest of it). Maybe the two Bobs went a bit too far away from what audiences loved about the original in Part III.

Although the movie is set mainly in the Wild West, it's still seem through the eyes of two people from the 80's. There are shootouts, horse chases and train robberies, but Back to the Future Part III is never a real Western. What makes this movie seem different from its predecessors is that fittingly it doesn't have a lot to do with teen culture anymore (save for a Michael Jackson-reference). Marty himself seems to have grown up quite a bit and you'll be surprised to see him behaving more focused on his mission than Doc in the latter half of the movie. This change of places by the characters were a deliberate decision by the writers and it does push the story and the relationship of Marty and Doc forward, but something about it just doesn't feel right.

What makes the story seem even more estranged is the introduction of a new character, Clara Clayton (Mary Steenburgen), with whom Doc falls madly in love. Now, although we should all be happy for Doc having found his own private happiness, somehow we don't want him to behave like that. It's not Doc as we know and love him- and that's exactly the problem Robert Zemeckis was talking about. Marty and Doc used to be a team. Was anyone happy for John when Yoko got between him and The Beatles?

I still think Back to the Future III is an amazing accomplishment, a fine finale to one of the best trilogies ever made. You can't give enough praise to Zemeckis and Gale for not just making these movies for financial reasons but for actually trying to make them as good as possible. Personally, I love this movie to bits and I don't think it could have been realized any better.

Fans who are still longing for a fourth part should be keep in mind and would be best advised to let it go. Zemeckis and Gale have said repeatedly that they don't plan on ever continuing the story. And why should they? Everything has been done. The movies are perfect the way they are. Let's be thankful there are still filmmakers that to their artistic conviction.

And why not end it with the DeLorean being destroyed? But don't worry there's a time-traveling train!

8.5/10.

Back to the Future Part II (1989)

From the present, to the future, back to the present, and then back to the past.

[8/10 · 6 February 2023]

Back to the Future II is a solid sequel to the first one which Back to the Future (1985) is a masterpiece. This a fun travel science fiction comedy in the trilogy. It deals with paradox past traveling. From traveling with DeLoren in to the future and back to the past again. This film in my opinion it doesn't deserve the hate it gets, like mostly viewers stated. I love Back to the Future trilogy it is one of my favorite all-time favorite trilogies of all time. I grew up with this trilogy i have seen the first one on VHS when i was a kid. Years later i have seen the sequels on TV. I love this movie and it is my third favorite film in the trilogy. Don't get me wrong but I have enjoyed Back to the Future Part III more than Part II but I think the second film is the most underrated film in the trilogy and the most unappreciated.

When Back to the Future was initially conceived, director and writer Robert Zemeckis and writer Bob Gale had no idea how much notoriety it would eventually achieve, nor of the big box office records it would break. They were happy just to see their project come to fruition. When they wrote the original film, the ending they had written was supposed to be the end of it. Because of it's success, however, and Hollywood being Hollywood, there had to be the inevitable sequels. The problem was that with the original ending, they had painted themselves into a corner as to where they could go with the sequel. What they finally came up with in Part II, is a film that is every bit as whimsical as the original, yet moves along at a pace that will leave you breathless.

For Part II the cast is pretty much intact from the original film. The exceptions are Crispin Glover as George McFly has been replaced by Jeffery Weisman and Claudia Wells has been replaced by Elizabeth Shue as Marty's girlfriend Jennifer. George McFly's role in the sequel is more talked about by other characters than his actual on screen time, and Jennifer's time on Screen is quick and brief also (although she has one great scene that takes place in the future) so neither casting change is of any consequence.

What makes the Back to the Future series so terrific, is that Zemeckis and Gale took the time travel concept, applied a little originality to it, then let their imagination run wild. In BTTFII, we get a story that moves along like a runaway freight train. Not content to give us what the year 2015 may be truly like, since making such predictions are usually wrong anyway, they decide to let it all hang loose and just have fun with it. They are holographic theaters, Cafe 80's shops, antique stores that sell dust-blowers and other things, skateboards that hover, paying for cab rides with thumbprints, etc. Etc. Yet, for all the glossy, multi-colored stores and goofy concepts, we still recognize it as the same old Hill Valley. Something else Zemeckis and Gale do is to take some events from the first film, and replay them in 2015 Hill Valley. Usually, things like this would be seen as the lack of an idea, but in this its simply Zemeckis having a little fun and letting us in on it. It works perfectly.

As for the cast, Fox and Lloyd keep their characters of Marty and Doc on the same entertainer level as before. Fox is also given the chore of playing his nerdy son of the future, Marty as a middle aged man and even his daughter of the future. He is pretty much successful except I do think playing his daughter was a bit much. Lea Thompson, again has the difficult chore of bringing Lorraine to us in three different characterizations, and as before handles it admirably. Her 1955 Lorraine will always be her most memorable characterization in these films, but the others are equally well done. As for Thomas F. Wilson as Biff, Biff is biff, no matter how old, how young, or how powerful he may be, and his consistence of performance is also noteworthy.

The fun fact is that on October 21, 2015, Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd reprise their roles as Marty McFly and Doc Brown on Jimmy Kimmel Live and it quite Hilarious to see on TV.

I don't see this film as superior to its predecessor, but it's still a fun ride going back to different time periods and is definitely a must-watch for fans of the first film if they haven't seen the sequels.

8/10.

Back to the Future (1985)

Great Scott! The Greatest-Time travel movie ever made!

[9/10 · 5 February 2023]

Synchronize your watches! If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 mph, you're gonna see some serious s***. Directed & written by Robert Zemeckis and produced by Steven Spielberg, this movie will forever remind me of what good-feel movie is supposed to be. The movie is about a teenager from 1985, Marty McFly (Micheal J. Fox) whom is sent back in time to 1955. While he was there, he meets his future parents in high school and accidentally becomes his mother, Lorraine (Lea Thompson)'s romantic interest, causing a time-rip. Marty must repair the damage to history by trying to get his parents to fall in love, and with the help of scientists Dr. Emmett "Doc" Brown (Christopher Lloyd), while, also finding a way to return to 1985. I love the fish-out-of-water history time-travel comedy, with the high-skates action scenes. It was very entertaining. I love how the film has its running gags, and inside jokes of historical pop culture events; of Robert Zemeckik's work, and what was happening in the 1980's at the time. The movie has everything for every audience member, at the time. While, most movies were risque and adult-aimed at the time; the movie balance it, enough to make it watchable for both family and single house-hold settings. Parents went to go see it for nostalgia reasons. While the movie is mostly set in 1950's, it's truly a mark of the 1980's. I have to give the movie props with its controversial movie dilemma, with the relationship with his younger mother. In any other movie, this might be tasteless, and turn people off, but Back to the Future made it work. I can also buy that, teenager Marty McFly would be friends with an older mad scientist, Doc Brown without it being creepy. Both have this father/son relationship that I love for this film. High praise to Christopher Lloyd for creating this character for his own. I can't see, anybody besides him. The production was indeed challenging. There were some changes that help the film, a lot. First off, is the title of the film, the film was almost called, 'Spaceman from Pluto'. Gladly, somebody came to their senses, and went back to the title, Back to the Future. Another is that, Micheal J Fox was the best choice to play Marty McFly, but he was committed to the show Family Ties. So they hired Scott Stoltz. I wouldn't say, Eric Stoltz would be awful in the movie, but indeed, Micheal J Fox was the best choice for the film and they waited on production, until Fox's schedule opened up. The supporting cast is well-acted. Crispin Glover that played George McFly got all George's nerdy mannerisms, right. Lea Thompson is just amazing, and beautiful actress to play Lorraine. Thomas F. Wilson as the bully, Biff Tannen was just hilarious. Every scene with him, made the film, so much better. You'll love to hate him.

The visual/special effects are just ground-breaking for the time, and it's just beautiful to watch. The opening scene, flawlessly sets up the film's central themes of the time and space, provides heaps of exposition. The music by Alan Silverstri is emotional, epic and intense music. It's give the feel of two friends alone, fighting alone against two of the greatest forces ever know to humanity; the time and fate. I do love the 'Earth Angel' song. It's romantic to listen to.

The acting is spot on in every scene. Today's film editors should watch this film a hundred times to see what editing should really be like, nearly flawless. The direction is unbelievable in my opinion. The screen writing and script are perfect as well and will make you laugh and smile throughout the movie. Every line by the awkward McFly family, every crazy rumbling of "Doc", and every cheesy bully taunts of Biff fit together so well.

As with all great movies, Back to the Future, has stood the test of time. It never gets old.

Overall: Power up the DeLorean, turn the time circuits on and get the flux capacitor! Where we're going, we don't need roads.

9/10.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)

101 is the magic number!

[9/10 · 30 January 2023]

A large part of Disney's triumph cannot be unseen because everyone remembers this movie. His last animated film had been Sleeping Beauty, which was the gorgeous looking and spectacular animated film of all time (excluding Fantasia). However wasn't a financial success and it pushed Disney for the first time since Fantasia to make a film on a smaller budget. 101 Dalmatians, based on the book by Dodie Smith, had quickly get released in order to make up the financial loss of Sleeping Beauty. In the two years between those two films there had been a revolution. The the entire army of inkers who had carefully translated animators' pencil drawings into smooth, flowing lines were replaced by a machine that simply photocopied.

The plot is Pongo and Perdita's 15 Dalmatian puppies are stolen by the wicked Cruella De Vil who wanted to kill them by making fur coats out of them. So it's to the Pongos to stop Cruella and rescue the 99 puppies.

So that was 101 Dalmatians, for the first film to use XEROX animation it has its own quite unique artistic style. A title promising over one hundred spotted dogs was (probably still is) the kind of thing liable to make animators feel faint. It couldn't have been done without the photocopier; and even so, getting spots to stay in the right place on a featureless white background is a huge headache. None of this bores the audience. We simply see a hundred plus adorable dogs.

Though the tougher animation isn't everyone's favorite taste but it does in really well here. The way it looks fits in with the gritty darkness of London and the wilds of the countryside, it's a nice change from the angular style of the films preceding it. When you consider the amount of puppies they had to animate it's an impressive feat. It is certainly one of the Disney's most suspense filled and exciting films. It's not very often that a Disney climax has a car chase and it's an outstanding sequence. The whole search for the puppies has a brilliantly tense feel and watching Cruella search for them has some really well made strong moments. This leads on to another highlight which is the atmosphere the film has. The whole 'twilight bark' is a great piece and the scenes where Tibbs and the Colonel investigate the manor have a really effective dark feel. These are underlined by the superb visuals of a gloomy London and the demonic looking 'heck hall'. The music is also very memorable as it contains the usual solid score Disney does, as well as the fantastic songs "Cruella De Vile" and "Dalmatian Plantation". The other effective scenes include a humorous look at how dog owners are similar to their pets at the beginning and how the dogs are watching TV when the human owners not around, it's very cute and charming.

So yeah, this film was so popular and successful at the box office at the time of its' original release that it was the second highest grossing animated film after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and all the money made Walt proud.

9/10.

Mary Poppins (1964)

Practically perfect in every way.

[10/10 · 29 January 2023]

Mary Poppins is, without a doubt, the finest non-animated film in the Disney canon and a genuine classic. A spoonful of perfection. It's not only my favorite Disney, but my all-time favorite movie.

Odds are good you've seen Mary Poppins, it came out in 1964 and is a pop-culture touchstone. If you haven't seen it, go see it.

Based upon the series of books by P. L. Travers, but mainly on the first book, Mary Poppins is a film we should be very grateful to have. It took Walt 20 years to obtain the rights to Mrs. Travers' fantastic tale and the bold Australian born author was very strict on what could be included the 1964 classic. While Travers would ultimately hate the flick with all it's Sherman Brothers songs and animated sequences, Mary Poppins would still be a critically acclaimed flick to the public eye and after all these years, it's still one of the greatest fantasy films of the last several decades. I read the books and they are worthy of checking out, and if it weren't for Disney's brothers who read them, he probably wouldn't have thought bringing the character to the big screen.

The movie revolves around an unhappy family, who called the Banks and the chaos theory as Mary Poppins, who is the main character, a wonderful nanny is inserted into the Banks family. The children go from "Be seen and not heard" "Be heard and seen". The movie also mixes humans and animation figures which is quite well done. I think this movie is spectacular and everyone should see this movie at least once...

In Edwardian Landon's Cherry Tree, yet another nanny resigns from keeping an eye on Mr. Banks' boisterous children, Jane and Michael. But then, as if by magic, a new governess-the enchanting, Mary Poppins-lands on their doorstep to take control of the situation, as thrilling adventures along with the amazing chimney sweep, Bert, pave the way for a wonderful transformation. Will the charming Miss Poppins turn chaos into order?

The 1910 London scenery looks very magical in this film. You can very well imagine like Mary Poppins popping up in a place like that. The film was filled with great musical numbers, all done by the legendary song-writing team The Sherman Brothers like Oscar winning "Chim Chim Cher-ee", "A Spoonful of Sugar", "Step in Time", "I Love to Laugh" and "Feed the Birds" (Disney's personal favorite as well as my favorite song of the movie). And let's not forget "Supercalifragiliexpiaidocius". Man, that's a long word! Brothers Robert B. And Richard M. Sherman were behind the perfect score. There are lots of classic scenes there, like when they jump into the chalk drawing. You can see them racing with carousel horses. And Dick Van Dyke dancing with animated penguins. Entertaining movie can't get more entertaining than this. Even the animation and effects in this movie are superb, from the umbrella head in the shape of a parrot that talks to Mary, to the animatronic birds that Mary sings to and those were early animatronics developed by I'm sure one of the imaginers of Disney. Such artistry could not have been found in any other movie at the time and all of bends together.

I have enjoyed this movie since I was little and I remember singing the songs, dancing the scenes and even reenacting many of the scenes with my family and friends. It's a timeless classic and one of Walt Disney's greatest achievements, if not Walt's personal magnum opus, if you don't count Mickey Mouse, Disneyland or his first feature length animated film "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937). My family also has seen this film for years in fact, ever since it came out, with my father being 8 at the time of its release and his parents who often went to movies took him to go see it and I'm sure years from now the film will still be looked at and be one of Disney's all time masterpieces.

A practically perfect 10/10.