Russell Crowe dials up his inner Rutger Hauer ("The Hitcher) and Michael Douglas ("Falling Down") to reap terror on a boy and his mom who don't give him a courtesy honk. Skip this "meh" road rage thriller and check out the aforementioned titles instead.

Russell Crowe stars in the new Thriller “Unhinged” and gives an intense performance which has become a staple of his career. Playing a man who has lost it after the loss of his job and marriage, The Man kills his ex and her partner before burning down their home and vanishing into the night.
Rachel (Caren Pistorius) is a woman who is seeing her world slowly crumble around her. She is in the midst of a contentious divorce, has just lost her best client, and is struggling to take care of her son while dealing with her brother in financing moving in with her so she can afford to pay for a needed care home for a family member.
As one thing after another mounts for Rachel and dealing with heavy traffic as she tries to get her son to school to avoid a detention for being tardy; she honks and makes and aggressive turn in front of the Man. He takes offense to this and drives alongside Rachel and demands a since apology for her actions. Rachel has long since lost any sense of caring and does not provide a sufficient response which further triggers the Man.
As some very aggressive road rage follows; Rachel believes she has put it behind her and drops her son off at his school. While filling up her gas tank Rachel sees that the Man is following her and when her efforts to diffuse the situation further trigger the Man she sees just how dangerous and highly unstable individual he is.
What follows is a deadly game of cat and mouse as the Man taunts Rachel while exacting his revenge on those in her life all the while preparing for his next encounter with her.
Crowe is fantastic and gives a very intense performance without ever going too far over the top and becoming campy with his performance which is often the case in films of this type. He is a compelling adversary who commands the attention of the viewer and one can see that he is an individual who has simply snapped from the pressures and reality of life and believes his actions are justified.
While I was able to predict one of the big moments near the end of the film; it was delivered In a slightly different way which was refreshing. The film was intense and compelling and Director Derrick Borte keeps things from become too over the top especially in the last part of the film where Hollywood standards for the genre did tend to come in the play.
The film wisely relies on the strength of Crowe and the supporting performances and provides a welcome return to cinematic features for viewers as long as they are willing to overlook some minor things and focus on the intense story and compelling performances.
4 stars out of 5
www.sknr.net

As a sequel of an action comedy, this is a _predictable_ action comedy. It fills two hours with all the expected elements, in multiple instances and variations.
Wit replaced by "strong language", plot replaced by clichés, suspense replaced by action sequences (with CGI to reduce costs and make things safer). A couple of nods to completely different franchises, solid pacing; no arc of suspense despite an continent is to be eradicated. The story lacks any sense, the characters any depth - but it has lots and lots of humour.
Pity it's not my type of humour; but hey, other people will be shaking with laughter and will be highly entertained.
Watch at your own risk and discretion: check any two minutes at random, decide - the entire movie is like that sample.

Fun enough action-comedy, probably a tad better (from what I can remember) than the first one, mainly due to the inclusion of Salma Hayek who was great and the sparring between Reynolds and Jackson wasn't as annoying compared to the last go around. Solid supporting cast with Antonio Banderas and Morgan Freeman as well. **3.75/5**

Despite holding one of the worst sequel titles ever created, The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard was always going to be a film I'd be interested in watching. The original flick was a straightforward, dumb action-comedy movie with a bunch of Hollywood stars attached to the project, which was always going to be financially successful. Fan-favorite comedic actors like Ryan Reynolds (Pokémon Detective Pikachu) and Samuel L. Jackson (Spiral) bantering for over an hour-and-a-half? Of course, viewers will run to the theaters...
This sequel follows pretty much the same formulas of its predecessor. Every remotely emotional moment or storyline is replaced by a random joke or nonsensical action sequence. A vast majority of the dialogues feel like stand-up comedy or improv from the actors. Even the villain portrayed by Antonio Banderas (Dolittle) checks all the caricatural boxes of the "bad guy". From the writing to Patrick Hughes' (The Hitman's Bodyguard) direction, it all feels too familiar and unexciting.
The bloated runtime, the overwhelming amount of jokes, and some rough language might be a tad too much for some audience members, but the phenomenal chemistry between every cast element is enough to compensate for an otherwise forgettable flick. Hopefully, a more than certain third film won't add more apostrophes to its title...
Rating: C

I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard. Every time Ryan, Samuel, and Salma open their mouth it becomes a big laugh moment. The trio is just perfect and the performance of Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L Jackson, and Salma Hayek was so so so good.
The story wasn't great as the first movie but it was hell funny and full of bloody action sequences. There was some crazy car chasing scenes and big explosions. The VFX and the Cinematography were excellent.
I like the addition of Morgan Freeman, Frank Grillo, my favorite, and Antonio Banderas. They all added more fun to this movie. I don't understand the hate for this movie. It was an interesting and entertaining movie from start to end. It's full of continuous action and jokes. I just loved it.

When audiences last saw Bodyguard Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds); he was dealing with the aftermath of helping save the day and his long-time nemesis Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson). Taking place shortly after the events of the first film; “The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard” finds Michael trying therapy after he has a reoccurring and disturbing dream following the loss of his AAA Bodyguard license.
His Therapist is eager to be rid of him and his multiple neuroses and suggests that he give up guns and the life he knew and find himself and his future self while relaxing in Italy.
Michael accepts this and becomes at peace and is so clueless that while lounging with his noise-canceling headphones by the pool; he is oblivious to a brutal and protracted gunfight around him.
In no time; Sonia Kincaid (Selma Hayek); whisks Michael away and fills his ears with a string of highly unfiltered comments and rants. It seems that Darius has been kidnapped and asked her to get Michael to help him out. Michael is unwilling to use guns and finds the to say unstable would be kind; Sonia to be way too unhinged for his new lease on life and that Kincaid wanted “Anyone but Michael” when he asked his wife to get help.
The trio is forced to work with one another by Interpol as it seems there is a plot underway to destroy the European Union and Michael, Sonia, and Darius have no choice but to do the bidding of the Government or face charges.
The fact that Sonia is desperate for a baby and a Honeymoon only complicates matters further as they recklessly head to their assigned mission and find that a very wealthy individual has nefarious plans and has hired elite professionals to ensure all opposition to his plans are removed.
What follows is a madcap, violent, and dysfunctional romp as the trio battle the bad guys, the law, their own abundant issues, and each other to try to save the day and clear their slate with the authorities.
While the film is not going to win many points for an original, complex, or overly complex plot; the setup and narrative serve to give the film a showcase for its strengths which are the three leads. Reynolds and Jackson work very well with one another and Hayek often steals her scenes with her compassionate yet teetering on the unhinged portrayal of Sonia.
The jokes fly as frequently as the blood and the bullets and there is some great scenery as well which frames the action and story perfectly. There are also some appearances by some very good actors in significant supporting roles which I will not spoil but suffice it to say they really support the main cast well.
I summarized my reaction to the local Publicist as follows…” Not much plot, cartoony bad guys; but the great cast, action, and humor”. While the film will not set a new standard in the Action Comedy category, it is still an enjoyable enough romp despite the flaws and it would be great to see the trio back for another madcap adventure down the line.
3.5 stars out of 5

A film just in my style. It’s a future/alternate reality kind of apocalyptic action/horror movie. Fairly simple and straightforward plot where the good guys stays pretty much stays as the good guys throughout the move and the hero is really someone that kicks ass throughout the movie. No bloody fussing around with making the hero “human” or some crap like that.
The special effects and the apocalyptic sceneries where well done. In general the film was a solid piece of work. The transfer to Blu-ray equally well done. Picture quality was as to be expected and the DTS Master Audio 5.1 soundtrack well balanced with just enough surround effects and LFE to make it very enjoyable.
The film get a 5.7 rating at IMDB which in my mind is a bit on the low side but then, it’s not really a film for everyone. The so called “critics” at Rotten Tomatoes gave it 17% which is just pure bullshit but then I have given up on those idiots a long time ago. Most of those “critics” must come from the American bible belt or something 😦

"I Spit on Your Grave" is a raw, unapologetic tale of survival and revenge. While the first act skimps on character development, the clear storyline keeps the tension high. The brutal second act is emotionally draining but sets the stage for an intense and satisfying third act. The revenge scenes, though somewhat predictable, are executed with creativity and leave a strong impact.
Chad Lindberg delivers a standout performance as Matthew, adding depth to an otherwise straightforward plot. The stark, isolated setting amplifies the sense of helplessness and mirrors the protagonist’s transformation. It’s a tough watch but a solid film for its genre.

The film is eminently watchable. The acting and directing are, of course, excellent. The script, however, meanders aimlessly like Moses in the desert. Where's the point? What are the important take-aways? These questions and more are not answered. For such a long film, the character development of the supporting roles was wholly absent. In my movie list of Directors About Themselves (https://boxd.it/iEWZO), this is weakest of the whole bunch.

Gabriel LaBelle is great in this generally entertaining and interesting tale of a young lad ("Sammy") growing up in post-war America who has a penchant (and eye) for film making. Growing up in an happy environment with mother "Mitzi" (Michelle Williams), father "Burt" (Paul Dano) and sister "Natalie" (Keeley Karsten) they all rub along amiably enough. His father is a developer in the computer industry, and together with their best family friend "Bennie" (Seth Rogan) relocate to a better opportunity in Arizona. It's after a family camping trip - and the death of his grandmother - that the young "Sammy" is asked to make a short movie from the film he shot whilst they were all messing about in the wilderness. His attention to the detail of his photography gradually reveals something that upsets him, and threatens the very equilibrium of their erstwhile happy family. What now ensues demonstrates how, gradually, all come to terms with his discovery and he determines just where his future career lies. I am not really a fan of Williams - I find her sterile most of the time; but here she is on really good form. The character of "Mitzi" is probably the most interesting, certainly the most conflicted - and she delivers it well. There are two lovely little, inspirational in differing ways, cameos from Judd Hirsch and from David Lynch at the end of this film that has a distinct lusciousness to it. Like the performances, the photography and the soundtrack are natural and engaging and could easily convince any of us that a career in film making is possible - indeed, straightforward! I don't know the extent to which it is autobiographical of Steven Spielberg's life, but to be honest I didn't really care. This is just a fine film to watch.

“The Fabelmans” is a movie loosely based on the true story of Steven Spielberg’s own childhood. Produced after the death of his mother Leah Adler and using the fictional family name of the Fabelmans the movie focuses primarily on the iconic film makers family and the impact his parents divorce had on his young life. “The Fabelmans” is rich in exposing the influences behind classic movies like E.T. ( Set in a broken home ) and some early techniques at effects the film maker used to better his home movies.
“The Fabelmans” starts in the 1950’s with Sammy Fabelman experiencing for the first time the magic of cinema with his parents. Slightly traumatised by the movie, particularly a train crash scene, it’s from this emotional experience the first glimpses of becoming a film maker appear. Who of us that have delved into the arts ( film making, actors , singers , performers , etc ) didn’t start off creating these types of home made replicas? The idyllic family set up, with the ever growing confident and more adept young home movie maker, becomes derailed when after editing his 8mm footage of a family camping trip he discovers all was not as he remembered. The impact of what Sam discovers about his concert pianist mother and that fateful trip results in the eventual breakdown of his parents.
As the movie moves into the early 1960’s and Spielberg’s high school years “The Fabelmans”touches on religion, race issues and first love. Due to the impact of that fateful camping holiday and therefore following a hiatus of not wanting to make any further home movies, Sam is persuaded by his girlfriend to film the end of school year beach party get together. The impact of Sam’s return to film making is clearly visible after the graduation film he produced is shown at the school prom to great acclaim.
“The Fabelmans” is well documented as being a love letter to cinema but equally it is Spielberg’s love letter to his family. This is the movies key fact, the acceptance of multiple things happening all at once. Vocation is driven by both fear and talent, loving relationships break down, and movies that appear simplistic are highly sophisticated. With an extremely satisfying ending “ The Fabelmans” is a beautifully crafted work of art and remarkable insight into one of the most famous and influential directors Hollywood has ever produced

I saw several negative reviews before I watched this, and I assumed there was an element of grading someone a bit more harshly when they have achieved wild success or, heaven forbid, if they do stellar work in one genre such as sci-fi or adventure and then have the chutzpah to create a film in a different genre not appreciated by the sci-fi etc. fans. Maybe there was some of that baggage involved; how else to explain one-star reviews. Really? A disgusting gross-out comedy might get 4 stars, but a serious biopic gets one?
But I have given it six stars, probably my low for a Spielberg movie. I thought the film was too episodic. Here is where he saw his first movie; here is him with his first camera; here is where he learns something upsetting about his parents’ marriage; here is some bullying and then that part in every coming of age movie it seems, where a pretty girl throws herself at him. Sure wish that had happened to me at that tender age. And some of the scenes felt rather cliched to me. Also, and this is a bit of a spoiler, at one point his mother assures him she has not done ”that” with Bennie, and she loves her children and husband more than anything, but she still can’t live without Bennie? I had trouble with that revelation.
But it isn’t all negative stuff. I thought a lot of the acting was strong, with a few exceptions, and most of the dialogue was good, but when a film is 2 and a half hours long, consistency is hard to come by, and there were a few hiccups here and there. The scene with John Ford was intriguing, but they could have done a bit more with it. I liked the two sisters as characters, but again, not enough depth was given to them. A bit of a lost opportunity.

I don't know how to approach this one.
"The Time Machine" is one of those stories that, rereading it, beings back vivid memories. One of my best friends in high school loaned it to me, I stored it away in my backpack for about a month and then...when we had a field trip to The Board of Trade, I scrounged it out and read it on the train ride.
It was one of those stories that is so short I could rip through it in the hour and fifteen minutes between our small town and Chicago. To this day, every time I go back to it, it brings me back to 1997 and, to this day, I distinctly remember finishing it about the time the train stopped and I remember walking into the crowded city feeling like I was in a different world. The story had moved me out of reality so much Chicago seemed jarring.
And then they made it into a movie, a remake of a movie and, watching it, I don't know, I didn't have that same sense of being in a totally different world that the book gave me...
And the movie, in my mind, has to live up to that experience in some small way. Or at least give you that feeling that same feeling that the world was still spinning that one gets when they walk out of a movie and discover that it had rained.
It's an engrossing story and The Time Machine didn't seem to whisk me away like the book did. I can't help but feel it deserved better.
It felt like I was watching a movie and, honestly, it gave me the same since that Jackson's King Kong did, it felt like it was trying and horribly, miserably failed.
I left feeling "meh," and that was after being excited walking into it, I mean, I read it in 1997 and they made a movie in 2002 and, I was expecting the same feeling. I had waited long enough.
So, I don't know, I may be overly harsh on it just because I loved what the story did to me so much, the first time I read it and now, as an adult, it doesn't take me to another world, it takes me back to 1997 again, and high school, and that hour fifteen minute train ride to Chicago.
So ultimately, it could be a halfway decent film that I just hate because the story had such a jarring effect on me when I first encountered it.

Some interesting and even ambitious aspects but this sci-fi thriller was pretty uneven while the visual effects were also a mixed bag from being fairly impressive for its time (20 years now) to pretty shoddy. On the plus side, Guy Pearce was good in the lead. This one also reminded me when Orlando Jones was in a good amount of movies (18 between 1998-2004). IDK, this is one that did keep me entertained. **3.0/5**

'Dogtooth' is certainly a Yorgos Lanthimos film! On the whole, I found this fascinating. It gets quite disturbing in parts, as you'd expect from this director, but all in all it is very good. The plot starts out difficult to read, though does quickly become clear and well portrayed.
Christos Stergioglou is a perfect fit for his role, rather intimidating and controlling. Angeliki Papoulia, Mary Tsoni and Christos Passalis bring noteworthy performances as the children, Papoulia and Tsoni particularly stand out. It's not a film that is cast reliant, but they play their part.
Looking back, it is quite a slow paced and meandering movie. However, that's basically only in retrospect because whilst watching I didn't actually feel that to be the case, which is a big positive. The film is wonderfully shot too, not that I expected any less having seen Lanthimos' most recent (similarly as great) releases.

Unnamed parents (Christos Stergioglou and Michele Valley) are so obsessed with their children that they have, over the years, created an walled environment in which they see nobody but each other and never leave their substantial rural home. There is one exception, and this is "Christina" (Anna Kalaitzidou) who is brought in from time to time as the paid sex pal of their son (Christos Passalis). Father drives to work each day whilst the remainder of the family live what can only be described as a surreal existence where even words mean different things. Did you know that a zombie was really a buttercup in disguise? Things start to get a bit out of hand, though, when "Christina" starts a friendship with their younger daughter (Mary Tsoni) and the dynamic of indoctrination and intimidation starts to unravel a little. The children (all in their late teens or older) start to question the reliability of their parental information and to become restless for new information and freedom. The parents are having none of this, though, and this leads to some drastic action from the father and some even more from their younger daughter who devises a cunning plan to break free from this silken yoke. There's something spookily controlling about the way Yorgos Lanthimos presents this story to us. It's a bit of ignorance is bliss married to you don't miss what you never had and the result is a naiveté borne of three siblings who take on blind faith a scenario that they simply can't envisage being different. The performances from Stergioglu as the sometimes quite brutal father and from Kalaitzidou, their visitor, evoke some serious feelings of discomfort and the sight on the son parading around the garden as though he were a boy fifteen years younger is distinctly disconcerting. Is it plausible? You'd like to think not.

Doogtooth, the official Greek entry to the 2011 Academy Awards, is nominated for Best Foreign Film. Released in 2009, and directed by Giorgos Lanthimos, Dogtooth is a strikingly original film that captures a world that is at once like nothing you’ve ever seen, but oddly familiar at the same time.
The story is about a family of five who live in a beautiful walled villa in Greece. It’s more like a compound because the patriarch (Christos Stergioglou) is the only one who ever gets to venture into the world beyond the tall fences that surround the property. His wife (Michele Valley) and three teenaged children live in a world that at first seems oddly Edenic.
The film opens with the children listening to an instructional cassette. They learn that the word “sea” means a leather armchair, “motorway” means a strong wind, and “excursion” means a strong, resilient material. Anything that hints at the world outside the walls of their home is obscured. Even the airplanes that fly in the air are construed to be toys, and when one is spotted, one of the parents will run into the house and through a toy plane out into the garden so the children will believe the lie.
The only outsider allowed into the compound is a woman named Christina (Anna Kalaitzidou), a security guard at the father’s place of employment who moonlights as a kind of private prostitute whom the father hires to satisfy his son’s budding sexual urges. Christina is brought to the compound blindfolded, but on the rides to and from the family home, the father tries to engage her in small talk, which amounts to questions about her hygiene, and whether she wears the perfume he has bought her as a gift.
Much time is devoted to daily routine of the family.
We see the father at work, where he has created yet another elaborate ruse to get out of having his boss over for dinner (he says that his wife, a former handball champion, is confined to a wheel chair – the result of a tragic accident). He’s such a cipher of a man that the boss, along with the children, buys into the lie without a hint of suspicion.
Life at home, though, is where the film really shines. We see the kids at play. The eldest child is the son (Hristos Passalis), who looks to be 18 or 19. Two sisters (Angelika Papoulia and Mary Toni) look to be 18 and 17. Though they are on the verge of adulthood, the behavior of the children is more pre-adolescent. There is an innocence about them that is both sad and endearing. The actors playing the kids beautifully capture the behavior and mental territory of young kids that comes through in the games they play and the way they bicker with one another and depend on their parents for all their information about the world – a world they will only be ready to experience when either their left or right dogtooth falls out.
What is a dogtooth? Exactly.
When the son asks the mother what a zombie is, she asks where he heard the word. He lies and says that he thinks he heard the father say the word. The mother pauses, then tells him a zombie is a small yellow flower. Later, the joke is paid off when the son stops in the middle of his play in the garden and yells for the mother to come and see two zombies he’s found.
Tricking children is one thing, but as they grow, certain fantasies and myths that parents create are found out to be lies. Of course, this often happens when our kids come home with conflicting information from the outside world, which is what happens to make the artificial world of the father begin to unravel.
Christina, the prostitute, wants oral sex, which the son doesn’t like, so she bribes the oldest daughter into satisfying her by bringing videos, like Rocky and Flashdance, that give the daughter a notion of what goes on in the world her father has taught her to fear.
These videos are like the bite from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and even though the father finds out about them and banishes both them and Christina from their lives, the damage has been done. Things will never be the same again.
The acting in Dogtooth is beautifully realized.
Stergioglou doesn’t play the father as a tyrant, but as a kind, loving, but firm parent, with only the best interests of his family – as he sees them – in mind. This father, despite what happens in the movie, never comes across as a villain, which is to Stergioglou’s great credit.
The children, especially Papoulia and Tsoni, capture a prolonged innocence that doesn’t rely on tricks or costuming, but on finely observed performances. What’s weird is that these are very damaged people, but until they are told so or try to live in the outside world, they’re just kids.
Because of how perfectly Lanthimos sets up this alternate world, I never once questioned anything that went on there. It all made sense. Dogtooth is a well constructed escape that takes a long, hard look at family and parenting and the choices we sometimes make as parents to both lock out the world and lock in our kids – and the toll those decisions sometimes take. Sometimes sad, sometimes funny, Dogtooth is a film deserving of its nomination – and your attention.

Lame horror.
'Poltergeist' offers nothing. It may not be an absolutely awful watch, but there's nothing about this that's good unfortunately. The story is largely predictable and plain, none of the cast give anything close to a performance that's worth remembering. There aren't many, if any, scares either - not great for a film in this genre.
As for the onscreen talent, it's slim pickings... not even Jared Harris' late appearance could save things. If I had to pick a standout, away from Harris, it would be Sam Rockwell. The two youngest kids, Kyle Catlett and Kennedi Clements, aren't terrible in fairness.
Not one I'll be revisiting. Yawnful.

The movie blurb is written by some 20th Century Fox representative. I would guess that the person in question has not even watched the original movie. “Legendary film makers”? What a load of bull! These people have not produced anything really worth watching and this movie certainly do not improve on that score. I mean, how dumb are these people from 20th Century Fox? I certainly hope the audience are not dumb enough to fall for this obvious lie. Judging from the, well deserved mediocre score on various review sites I guess they did not.
Anyway, as for the movie. It is a bleak (cheap) shadow of the original. It has absolutely zero of the charm that the original movie had and, most importantly, none of the characters had anything of the charisma that the original characters had. The father is a total dumbass and an irresponsible at that. The mother could by just any Hollywood style housewife.
When you finally think that something interesting would happen, that is when the ghost hunter enters the scene, it just falls flat again. He is just totally lacking in appeal. He is neither a bad ass nor is he mysterious or anything else that makes him worth watching.
There are just so much things wrong with the story as well. How can this guy afford and get a one for a house when he apparently do not seem to have a job? He even manages to go for another house in the end after his original one apparently got shredded. How bloody dumb is the script writer? In the original it was a new neighbourhood which explained the “troubles”. In this one it is not which means that the script writer obviously had zero understanding of the original plot which brings us back to the same question again. What the f…?
There are some half decent CGI scenes in this movie but the same can be said for a lot of things coming out of the movie industry nowadays (well with the exception of SyFy productions of course).
I would say that as a TV-movie it would have been above average. As a remake of a classic it totally falls flat. I am happy that I watched it at home and did not spend time going to a theatre watching it.

I had huge reservations about watching this remake, which I felt was completely unnecessary. It wasn't as bad as I had anticipated, and that the bad reviews at the time gave me the impression I should fear or avoid watching it. The special effects were pretty good, and Sam Rockwell, Jared Harris and Jane Adams (how wonderful it was to see her again, after her exceptional work in 'Happiness'!) sold the film for me. I knew what to expect after liking, but not loving, director Gil Kenan's earlier animated 'Monster House', but I was intrigued how his energetic directing would transfer to live-action work.
I think they could have made it more suspenseful and scary, but I'm not really sure that was their intention. I think they were going for a family experience with some thrills, chills and laughs...such as the recent 'Ghostbusters' remake was going for. If that was the case, then in that regard it was quite successful. I'm looking forward to re-watching this eventually with my 13-year-old son, horror-film aficionado, Julian, who like me adored the original.
If I was to make the perfect 'Poltergeist' film, I would have taken the same exact Steven Spielberg script and simply updated the special effects. I think that would have been a more successful approach.

> Would have been a better film if it was an original.
Unnecessary to compare this with the original and I tried, but impossible to avoid it since it's an official remake. Everything, from the house to frame by frame, all the scenes looked the same, except the cast and it's set in the present world with the daily life's modern gadgets. If you had not seen the 80s film, then there's a little chance you might like it. Though it was not a serious horror movie, or a scary movie to consider, still quite enjoyable like a dark comedy in parts. But I recommend the old one.
Really? Sam Rockwell? He did not fit in the role, just okay though. And the kids, did not impress me as like the original movie. The only upgrade in this new version was the technology, CRT monitors to LED kind of stuffs. I expected a major, at least a bit alteration in the story or the screenplay that sets in a different circumstances and the location. That could have been a lot better. Disappoints for those who loved the first version. However, that movie deserved to be remade, and I did not think it would end like this. Hoping for a better sequel, but I'm already feeling that would end in the hands of the second string cast and crew which could be a cheap horror-thrill.
5/10

It’s not the worst remake of all time, but it’s just ordinary. It’s bland, lifeless, vanilla, and feels like what the Lifetime Channel in America would do to a remake of the Tobe Spielberg classic haunting film. I think the only reason Gil Kenan was hired for this movie was because the movie is based around a monster house and he depicted a monster so well in his last film that the job only seemed like a no brainer. The problem is Kenan forgets to produce likable characters and interesting scares during the process of producing an evil possessed house. - _Zevi Wolmark_

A bit long-winded, but undoubtedly a very good movie.
'The King of Comedy' has a sturdy Robert De Niro lead performance, as well as solid support from Jerry Lewis and Sandra Bernhard. I enjoyed seeing the split from what actually happens and how De Niro's Rupert Pupkin views things via his dreams; especially with how merged they become by the end.
Absolutely zero surprise to now learn that Todd Phillips and Scott Silver used this and 'Taxi Driver' as inspiration when writing 'Joker'. Quite cool though!

Robert De Niro is great in this enjoyable comedy about the aspiring comedian "Pupkin" who is prepared to go to great lengths to get his moment in the sun. To that end he doorsteps acclaimed chat-show host "Jerry" (the entirely convincing Jerry Lewis) and, not exactly lacking in self-confidence, convinces him to listen to his material. Anything for a peaceable life thinks the star and agrees clearly just to be rid of the man. "Pupkin", though, isn't so easily deterred and what ensues now are a rather darkly comedic series of escapades as the little man determines to get that spotlight - even if he has to turn to lying, housebreaking - even kidnapping. The writing here is taut and entertaining; the characters - especially that of the rather pompous "Jerry" are well crafted by the actors who really seem to be enjoying their roles. Martin Scorsese manages to skilfully keep this on the right side of what could easily have become far-fetched farce. It's the ultimate speculate to accumulate film poking fun at the whole television "opportunity" system, and with the odd sight of an almost unrecognisable Ed Herlihy it all adds up to a fun film to watch and I challenge anyone not have a laugh here.

Martin Scorsese's THE KING OF COMEDY was the lowest-grossing major studio film of 1982. It isn't difficult to see why: It's loaded with uncomfortable situations; there is no obvious protagonist; no sympathetic characters (the one that could potentially get our sympathy turns out to be a thief); and everyone is grating and/or unpleasant (even Tony Randall plays 𝙝𝙞𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛 as a demanding prick). This lack of popularity was the audience's loss, as Paul Zimmerman graced Scorsese with a screenplay which was just as prescient on the topic of fame as Paddy Chayefsky's NETWORK (1976) was on the future of television. In a day and age where television reality shows and online video platforms allow talent-bereft fame-seekers to offer their wares to an anesthetized public, De Niro's Rupert Pupkin displays an uncanny ambition just by leaving his mother's basement, much less his willingness to use crime as a means to his end.

**De Niro as yet another deluded psycho**
De Niro is Rupert Pitkin, a comedian who seeks to be as famous as his hero, Jerry Lewis. Pupkin could be Travis Bickle's equally disturbed brother - both of them living in New York and both of them losing their minds in unison.
After much rejection, the crazed Pupkin decides to kidnap his hero and hold him for ransom until a studio gives him a big break. Jerry Lewis is impressive as the total bastard that Pupkin so admires.
A disturbing movie that is more relevant nowadays than ever since the advent of the Big Brother tv show which places national attention on people with no talent.
- Ian Beale

I am one of those people that normally hate Will Ferrell, especially in a leading role. I find him obnoxious, and over-the-top to the point where he is pandering for laughs form the LCD than actually attempting to be funny.
However, there is always an exception to the rule. Usually that exception comes in the form of a supporting role... as in Old School... but here it comes in the form of a leading role.
It seems like Marc Forster really reigned him in on the one and the pay off was AMAZING. It's seriously a funny and quirky film. It's hysterical and kind of plays to an audience that wonders if writer's creations can come to life.
It's an imaginative script and plays to the people that feel, maybe, a little guilty for leaving a book over night when the characters are left in a bad position just in case they are real and might get stuck there. It appeals to anyone that has ever wrote fiction, and felt like a God because of the control they had over their characters... and it does so in the most ridiculous way possible.

A fresh idea that, however, becomes a bit of a boring movie.
The best part is the good performances by the cast. Specially surprising is Ferrell.

I really liked this film. It wasn't that scary, but it did gross me out a lot. This is a horror film that feels like it didn't want to be terrifying but wanted to show us what is terrifying. The threat of the film was an interesting concept, and the film did a great job of making me invested in the story that is unfolding as you watch it. The ending felt a little loose, and I feel it should have gone a little longer, so it could have been a better end, but other than that, this was a great film, and I'd recommend it to anyone.