Horrible watch, won't watch again, and do not recommend.
I'm not a big fan of Ben Stiller (most of the time), and definitely not Vince Vaughn. I like Jonah Hill, but this is after he found some range and before he learned to control it, intense doesn't not equate funny. I thought Richard Ayoade would save it, but he just stood by and watched the train wreck happen. I do chuckle a bit thinking of him asking the other guys if this is stuff Americans find funny.
This has a great premise, average joes find alien invaders, so good in fact, it's basically a trope, but the way this presents it feels like they tried to steal it from "Laser Team" and then legally distinct it from that property.
Long story short, there just isn't a lot of value in the movie. It's not that funny, it is basically a huge commercial for Costco and some other obvious brands. There is so much money poured into something that feels like a waste.
Don't get me wrong, it's done by professionals, it looks great, even if I don't like the Xenos design, and there is a decent script at the core of this. There is just an overall fail of execution, and lack of interesting characters and story.
You should go watch "The World's End" instead.

This movie is funny. Somehow it got a bad reputation. It's way better than supposed comedy "classucks" like stupid _Caddyshack_ or dumb _Animal House_. Try watching those now. Maybe there are one or two funny scenes in each of those overrated films. _Movie 43_ has many laugh-out-loud moments. It's a bunch of short skits like the over-hyped _Kentucky Fried Movie_ but unlike that steaming pile, this is well crafted. Also, there are two versions of this. The little thread of a story between the skits is different depending on the version you watch. I think it got bad reviews because of ultra sensitive, politically correct critics. People really need to lighten up. 9/10 stars.

When We First Met is another entry in the sub-genre of films that I will call, for lack of a better term, Groundhog Day movies. The most recent entries I have seen are Palm Springs and Russian Doll, though the latter is a limited series. They are also called time loop movies, though I prefer my term, which was even used by NewYork Yankee manager Joe Torre to describe his team being beaten in very much the same way in two consecutive championship games. Life imitating art.
I enjoyed the movie overall. There are a few twists to the time loop format. For one thing, in this movie, our hero (?) Noah chooses to relive the fateful events to get the result he wants rather than having it forced upon him. Also, he doesn’t merely relive one day but two: the day he is trying to change and the day three years later when he sees the longer term result of his time-tampering. A third twist is — but that one is best experience in real time, so to speak, so I am not going to give it away here.
I enjoyed the movie mostly, with just a few icky or cringeworthy moments, and would probably watch it again given the chance. It is witty and most of the characters have some depth to them, not just the two leads.
As a side note I offer an observation that hadn’t occurred to me while watching other “Groundhog Day” movies, and which has nothing to do with how good this movie is. I was thinking about how we only get to see Noah’s repeated versions of events. If the movie was following Avery or Carrie, for example, we would see that they don’t know they are living the same days over and over again. They make decisions, but they are only based on what Noah has set up for them each time. He is like a tin god in a way, as deeply flawed as any of the world’s flawed gods. They doin’t get to see all of the versions and decide; he decides for them based on what he feels they want and is best for them. Little tin god.
Sorry; that is digging a little deep for a romantic comedy. is fun and I recommend it on that basis, at least.

This is absolutely not my sort of thing. I watched _When We First Met_ because Alexandra Daddario is in it and that is the end of my reasoning. But I was actually pretty pleasantly surprised. Not enough to come away from the movie with a hearty, wide-net recommendation, but it did give a fix for a lot of the problems that I usually find inherent in American Romantic Comedies.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**A sincere tribute to the man and his work, full of bizarreness, humor, artificial octopuses and angora.**
I've been wanting to see this for a while now, and the opportunity finally came. Very intelligently directed by Tim Burton, it is a brief biography that honors Ed Wood, reckoned as the worst director Hollywood has ever known (although that title is disputed by other more recent directors).
I already knew Ed Wood's work, I've seen one or two of his films, and I can guarantee that his fame is justified: the films are the most amateurish imaginable and the number of errors and problems is such that even the general public saw the director's inability and naïveté. I won't dwell on this point, just add that this film covers the filming of “Glenn or Glenda”, “Bride of the Monster” and “Plan 9 from Outer Space”. As is typical of Burton's films, there is a certain amount of bizarreness which makes the most sincere homage to Ed Wood's work. One notices, implicitly, a certain sympathy or admiration for the director, who never achieved fame (at least, positive) and to whom success has eluded. He is a man with a vision and a dream, but without any ability to achieve it and who, even so, never gave up.
Johnny Depp was a smart choice for the protagonist. The actor likes unusual roles and portrayed Wood in a very faithful way, emphasizing his incorrigible and absolutely blind optimism, as well as his habit of dressing like a woman and the problems that caused him in being taken seriously. There is, in the character, a certain bizarre fetish about angora fabrics that I don't know if it was real, but it fit very well. I also really liked Martin Landau, a very respectable veteran who fit wonderfully into the role of Bela Lugosi, the mythical horror actor who was forgotten by the industry towards the end of his life and succumbed to morphine addiction and depression, and Lisa Marie, who played Maila Nurmi, Finnish actress famous for her character Vampira. Sarah Jessica Parker also did an impeccable job as Wood's girlfriend. Jeffrey Jones does a good job as Criswell, a fake psychic famous for his TV appearances. Bill Murray appears little, but does a decent job whenever asked.
The film was very well shot in black and white, and I believe this fit better with the spirit of the film, and the way it was designed. There is a beautiful limpidity and the cinematography is very crafted and stylistically rich. The film plays a lot with the difficulties that Wood encountered in filming and promoting his films, and the total amateurism with which he did so, and this is funny and, at the same time, moving. The sets and costumes are excellent, convincing, and the reproduction of the films was well done and honors the originals. The soundtrack, written by Howard Shore, does the rest and gives the film a bizarrely delicious tone. Finally, a word about the opening and ending of the film, in a style magnificently suited to cheap horror productions of the time.

This has to be one of the dumbest and worse movies I have ever seen from Adam Sandler. I don't get this movie or what the point of it is at all. Watched it 3 times and it still makes no sense.

I do not have anything even remotely resembling a clue about what I just watched, but like... Pretty cute.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

This somewhat new version of The Addams Family actually stay with the classic black and white version that was tv show. However they are modernized for the new viewers (mainly kids) to enjoy this. It doesn’t get overly weird or macabre to be full on Addams and even take some subtle nods from the tv show and comic strips.
It was an amusing animation but some fans might not warm up to this movie.

Bad watch, won't watch again, and can't recommend.
I like the Addams Family, conceptually, and I enjoy the live action movies, but this seems maximize everything I dislike about the Addams Family and minimize all the things I do like. And even then, the movie is widely inconsistent. It basically does whatever it wants whenever it wants without regard to the established rules.
This was something that the previous iterations did with some finesse, they always left some mystery to what the rules were, but it never contradicted itself.
The aesthetic alone feels pretty grating, and they use it as an excuse to do things that don't make any sense to facilitate the gags, but it again eludes what makes the Addams Family special, that it is weird and crazy things happening in reality.
While I do like the attempt to modernize the movie, it ruins some great potential to extend the universe and create new characters in the next generation of things: something more movies need to do.
Overall, this movie is just irritating, it has some basic structure to it, but the content is just dull.

Probably the worst _Addams Family_ adaptation, of the ones that I've seen. When I say worst, I don't mean least faithful to the source material, I just mean, the one I personally enjoyed the least. There was still some stuff to like though, and I think if this animated version got a sequel I'd be willing to give it a chance.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

This movie is yet another bland, boring animated kids film. It isn’t terribly insulting to the Addams legacy because it feels so far removed from it. Its plot is just a mess, and has very forced messages of being yourself that come out of left field in the film's climax - and of course, we can’t just have the Addams theme song, we have to have the urban gangster version of it by adding Snoop Dogg. Don’t waste your time; just show your kids the 90s films.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-addams-family-theyre-all-together-boring-the-addams-family

_A Ghost Story_ is one of the saddest movies I think I have ever watched. I did not have many expectations headed into this film, but I think that was for the better. The entire film makes you feels so isolated and alone. Someone a man in bedsheet in order to draw such strong emotions out of the audience. The whole experience really makes you think about your life and what it truly means. Although, with how much praise I have for the film there are some minor complaints I have. David Lowery incorporates some incredibly long shots of nothingness. I understand what he was trying to do with these shots, and they worked to an extent. But it added a sense of slowness and drag to the movie that made the pacing off. Every time the movie was about to find its pacing, a scene like this occurred and pulled me out. Regardless, I still willing to give this 4.5 stars due to the uniqueness and the emotion that I felt throughout the runtime.
**Score:** _86%_ |
**Verdict:** _Excellent_

**A love story from another dimension!**
I did not think what the title says was literal. I assumed some person with social-shy, wore a white cloth like a mask to confront it. Totally surprised by what I saw. Frankly, I did not like at the first. It was a boring start. I could not overcome that pie eating scene. It was damn too long for nothing. That kinds are the source of boredom. But the actress did good on that. Then what followed were amazing. I truly was not expected that. So at the end, I thought it was an average, then thought a decent and finally realised its something unique and awesome. The lesson is, the more time you give between watching the film and your opinion, the result would only get better.
Well the story was so simple. A couple with their average life get affected when one of them dies in a car accident. Soon the ghost resides the house looking for a reason to stay. It is kind of a love story from another dimension. As the time passes on, things change and complicates the quest. But there's always a way to fix it, even for a ghost, so how its been done and what it is was the remaining story.
The cast was good, but most of the film it was about the ghost, which could have been anybody inside the sheet. So can't appreciate particularly anyone. As I have heard, Casey did all those parts as he should be. Even though that was not a praisable performance than a simple presence. It's his second collaboration with the director along with Rooney Mara. The one question that everybody who saw it needed to be answered is what was the note says. I googled and got the Q&A with the director that says, nobody knows, not even Mara remembers what she wrote.
This is one of the best films. With or without reason the story happened. But that's not the matter, instead, how cleverly, such a concept was developed and made into a film makes the interesting fact. They even did not require a higher end graphics, except in small quantity. It will gain a cult status and as the years go by, it will be considered one of best 1,000 films. So recommend it, but be patient, at least in the initial stage and take a day to give an opinion on it. Maybe reading articles about the plot if you have a doubt is good. Really a creative film!
_7/10_

If a movie is boring on purpose, is it still boring?
Well, as it turns out: Yes.
But props for trying something different.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

**The four day episodes after the tragic event!**
An unusual biographical film. I have seen films about JFK, either based on the real or just fiction, but this one was entirely focused on his wife. It sets in just weeks after his assassination and soon goes back to that day and the following to tell us how Jacie Kennedy handled the bad time. From tragic event to conducting the final rites, that four days she has to fight for the right decisions. All these revealed by her to a reporter in one of the following week. Remember this film was originally meant for an HBO mini-series and then they turned it into a feature film. That was the risk taken by the filmmakers, later it paid off well.
I never knew who was Jackie, so when I saw Portman's performance in the opening stage, I thought she was overdoing it, the accent and imitation. But after some progress in the story, I got used to it thinking that's how it would be. Yeah, she was excellent and she deserved that Oscars nomination. I wondered what was the source, but after the research I came to know that it was based on the magazine interview by the same reporter you would see in the film. The Chilean director's Hollywood debute. He has done a good job. Also one of the final films of John Hurt in which he was in a small role. Worth a watch for it is being unique and especially revealing some unknown truth behind and/or after death of JFK.
_7/10_

An ok movie. Pretends to be gay so his friend won't lose everything. Then uses it to get closer to Jessica Beal.

Having miraculously recovered from his experiences just three year earlier, our now way more experienced cop “Rama” (Iko Uwais) finds that these thugs were but the tip of the criminal iceberg and that he and his family are now firmly in the sights of the bosses intent of revenge. It seems the only way he can keep them safe is to go undercover and expose himself to a nest of brutal drug dealers and corrupt officials - including some in his own force. So, “Yuda” is born. His task begins in prison and by ingratiating himself with the ambitious “Uco” (Arifin Petra), the rather duplicitous son of one of the nasties who’s sense of honour (and his henchmen) has hitherto kept the peace on the outside, he hopes to discover who is threatening his loved ones. Meantime, there are some changes going on amidst this hostile fraternity that could endanger the fragile familial truces and risk an all-out gang war. The thing about the first “Raid” was the dark, claustrophobic, environment in which our ninja hero did his stuff. This, though, takes their battles out into more open spaces and throws that intensity under a tuk-tuk. There’s boundless athleticism here and the choreography of the combat routines is precise and impressive, but the story is old hat and it suffers fairly early on from a bit of “been there, seen that”. It tries to present us with a plot, but that’s all too easily subsumed into the repetitive action scenes that make these martial arts look as menacing as a pas-de-deux in bloodstained Levi’s. It’s also far, far, too long as there’s such an inevitability about the whole thing that it could lose an hour and cut to the chase much sooner. Uwais is a charismatic man and the direction gets us up close and personal with the fighting, but once you’ve seen a guy smashed against a wall, or a room full of furniture destroyed for the fifth time, it all starts to get dull. Not a patch on the 2011 original, sorry.

A lot more involved than the original _Raid_ film, with a more complex story taking place over more time and in more places. Sounds great, but I think the smaller, contained tale of the original actually served the premise better. But make no mistake, _The Raid 2_ is **awesome**. It provokes more discussion than the original, and the fight scenes (which let's be honest, is 100% the reason we're all here) are **absolutely** up to specs.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

The Raid 2 is more ambitious than the original, with a more complex story and some of the best choreographed and directed action sequences ever made. What more could a hardcore action fan ask for?

It's a little heavy-footed and almost tries too hard, yet I quite enjoyed 'Just Like Heaven'.
Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo are a strong pairing, with Jon Heder spearheading a good support cast ably. It's a well paced film at around 90 minutes, there are some decently amusing scenes in there alongside some more sombre ones - the majority of which come off rather well. Some parts are cliché, but not to the degree that it affected my enjoyment.
One that is well worth a watch, in my opinion of course.

I can't say I had a fun time with 'Sleepless in Seattle'.
Post-watching, I was unsure how I felt about it. The whole set-up and how the story is portrayed is weird, the fact that the two characters in what supposed to be a romcom don't even properly meet until the final act is an odd choice, like don't get me wrong I can see it working but here it didn't for me... especially with one side giving stalker vibes, which adds to the weirdness.
I also wasn't convinced by the two leads, in both their performances and in their suitability - obviously the latter is hampered by the fact we barely seem them together so they cannot show any chemistry. Tom Hanks is the standout but only just, Meg Ryan tries though her character is just a bit mundane; and is in my opinion better suited to Bill Pullman's Walter, even though the film attempts to show us the opposite. No-one else onscreen sticks out, though credit to youngster Ross Malinger.
It's a nae from me, both Hanks and Ryan have thankfully done much better.

**Effective, functional and elegant, it has a script that I didn't like very much, and it has aged a little badly, but it remains an endearing film.**
This is surely one of the most famous romantic comedies that came out during the 90's, and one of the films that helped to popularize Tom Hanks, showing the world that he could be a serious actor and do more interesting things besides comedy. The film begins with a man and his young son moving to Seattle to deal with a mourning process. There, the child begins to pressure his father to find a girlfriend, to the point of calling a radio program where the father tells his story, touching a young journalist from Baltimore who is about to marry a man she doesn't love.
The script relies heavily on Platonism: the two main characters do not know each other, and only the radio broadcast and the exchange of letters truly connects them. Neither has any real reason to look for the other (Hanks' character sees physical distance as an obstacle, and Ryan's character is already committed). In the end, it is the tenacity and stubbornness of a child that leads them to find each other. Based purely on instinct, which is an illogical and irrational argument for an adult to make his decisions. For that reason, and despite recognizing the film's qualities, I didn't particularly appreciate it. I see and understand the attempt to create a contemporary romantic fable here, but fables don't really seem to work these days. For me, this one didn't work.
The film's great strength is in the excellent performances of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. The two are still quite young, trying to take advantage of the opportunity to achieve higher flights in more profitable and attractive projects for their careers. Hanks had mostly done comedy up until this point, and was determined to showcase his abilities in other projects. There is no doubt that he knew how to do it and show a deeper, more sensitive and emotional side that was not evident in his work so far. Ryan was also very competent in her role. Ross Malinger was also pretty good.
The film is not a great visual spectacle. It's a 90's movie that hasn't aged well and doesn't put much effort into the visuals. Proof of this are the graphics on that US map, which look like an arcade game. The cinematography is dull, and the colors washed out, but that was commonplace and routine in films of this era, and I take that reasonably well. The film tries to compensate us with excellent scenery and cityscapes of Seattle and New York, which is always effective, and with an excellent ending on top of the Empire State Building. The soundtrack makes a smart bet on songs by Sinatra, Nat “King” Cole, Celine Dion, Carly Simon, Roy Rogers and others. Most of the songs are well known and popular.

I'm unmoved by this 'Halloween' remake.
I guess that is of little surprise as I'm not someone who overly enjoys the 1978 original, I do like it but it is nought special to me personally. All in all, based on reading back my review of that aforementioned flick and based on my thoughts whilst watching, this is a weaker film in every way.
The only true positive I have is the Michael Myers theme, which is just a carry-over from the 1970s release - as ace as it is to hear it again, I would've preferred if they went without it... it kinda feels like they forced themselves to find spots to use it for the sake of using it. This production missed a Jamie Lee Curtis-esque performance, no-one stands out in that regard - Scout Taylor-Compton tries, but to no avail.
I never found Michael Myers himself all that scary or uncomforting in the original and that is again the case here, even to a further degree in all honesty. Myers just feels so brute-force all the time that there is no intrigue or creepiness about him here in my opinion. Malcolm McDowell didn't do anything for me as Loomis either, though it's cool to see Brad Dourif appear.
The opening 50 minutes and the closing 50 minutes felt like a bit of an abrupt switch too, admittedly I might have noticed something that doesn't exist but that's how it felt. It seemed early on like a noticeably different portrayal of 'Halloween', then the latter part felt more like a more standard, by the numbers remake.
If not for the name, this would be a very forgettable movie... in my eyes, anyway.

Well it has Malcolm McDowell, and he delivers in the master of accents kind of way.
But....1 star for being a reboot, out of principal, especially a reboot of a slasher film that, well, I always thought the deal with those was to keep adding and adding until you have to look up the Roman Numerals in Encyclopedias to make sure you're numbering them right.
"Halloween MCMLXXVIII: This Time it's Easter," You know, that sort of thing.
But we will add one for Malcolm McDowell just because, yeah, he delivers.
So two stars: ** And then it seems like Zombies idea was to show a lot of nudity and especially a lot of naked women getting killed by a horrible male monster after committing the sin of fornication.
So three stars: *** And that is because he MIGHT--with a really big stretch on that--have been trying to do a satire thing of the slasher genre with all the naked murdered women.
But...he could have also been going for mainstream snuff porn.
I'm honestly not sure which way to go on this one...so We are back to two stars: ** Just because it really might not have been an attempt at satire and I sort of want to be sure.
And we can't add any more because well...
It was already made and when it came around in 1978 it was moody and atmospheric and, well, it really looked a lot like Halloween, only a nightmare version of it.
Zombie's remake feels more like a cheap version of Halloween and really, the outdoor shots that are supposed to give you the seasonal feel remind me more of Thanksgiving pick-up football games. They look and feel less like a nightmare version of Halloween than Season of the Witch's small Southern Town atmosphere.
And the horror parts, really, ANY slasher movie and, by the way, since when was Halloween about T&A? I thought Friday the 13th owned that stereotype and we went to Halloween for, you know, atmosphere and scares...at least in the first 2 films.
So really, I guess my point is that it has Malcolm McDowell and that is slightly redeeming. He's always fun to watch...even in his bad movies...like this one.

The critics are wrong…again. Well, at least as far as I am concerned. This remake is not bad at all. A lot of people are comparing it with the original which is understandable. A lot of people says that it is crap compared to the original which is not understandable. At least not by me. This is one of the movies where I have seen the original and it was even one of my favorites at the time. I think this remake holds up quite well.
At first I was a bit worried that it was said to be a prequel. At least partly. However it is not really what I would call a prequel. It has a bit of extended background in the first quarter or so but that is not really what I would call a prequel.
I think the movie was pretty much what I expected or perhaps I should say what I hoped for. It is a slasher-movie of course but it resists the temptation to go all overboard. Nowadays you do not really get scared or even shocked by these kinds of movies so I was not really expecting to be. I was just enjoying Michael’s rampage through the town. It is of course a bit scary in itself that you are watching a madman going on a killing spree through a small town and enjoying it but hey, it is all fake!
One problem with the extended background at the beginning of the movie is that now there is kind of a plot-hole that is a bit annoying. When and, more importantly, how did Michael turn from a deranged kid to a supernatural killer with the strength to carry away one ton worth of tombstone and survive being stabbed as well as shot at?
Apart from that I think this movie was not bad at all. Sometimes I actually felt that Michael was behaving a bit too human like when he was stumbling when crashing through walls etc. but on the whole I quite liked this movie. The style is different from the original for sure but I do not feel it is worse or better for that matter.
It is a bit surprising (well maybe not, the French are bizarre when it comes to scheduling movies and TV-shows) that Cine+ did not schedule this movie for actual Halloween instead of the crap they did show. This one would have been perfect then instead of a day after.

The film’s first act is simply a huge version of the 1978 classic’s opening scene; following Michael Myers as a child through his first murder(s). Though many people found this tedious and far too drawn-out, personally I relished the opportunity to get more than a half a minute of character-development on the antagonist. In fact, we don’t only get to see Michael growing up and being arrested, the film then goes on to show us his evolution in a mental asylum. Once again, I know that was less than appreciated by quite a number of people who saw the film, but I find the sequence fascinating every time I watch the movie. Things like the relevance of the mask and kitchen knife are explored more deeply than the original, and the brutality of the character of Michael Myers is more striking. Though this is not considered good to hardcore fans of the silent bogeyman-characteristics from the original.
The protagonist of the piece is a character by the name of Laurie Strode, just as she is in the John Carpenter version, and she has two similar off-siders as the original (one of whom is portrayed by Danielle Harris of _Halloween 4_ & _5_ fame). Where the film does not advance in comparison to its predecessor is the dialogue between these three characters. They use virtually identical language to that of the 1978 film, which felt outdated and artificial even then (I can only hope that this was an intentional throwback by Mr. Zombie).
The Ahab to Laurie Strode is Doctor Loomis, Michael Myers’ psychologist, acted by the consistently fantastic Malcolm McDowell. I believe it is his performance that makes me appreciate Rob Zombie’s remake so much. He steals every scene he is in with his overwhelming presence, particularly in the Zone 2 theatrical version of the film (which to my knowledge is unfortunately not available in Australia).
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

I don't have a problem with remakes per se. Even though I am not a big fan of the original "Halloween" film directed by John Carpenter, I do acknowledge it as a film that started a horror slasher trend and served as an inspiration for many of the films that came after it. Since I am not crazy about the 1978 film, I thought I would be able to enjoy this remake without being too influenced by my love for the original film. After seeing this remake, I started to appreciate the original version a little bit more, since Rob Zombie turned the story and its characters into a vulgar mess.
The original film mostly focuses on the life of Laurie Strode going on about her business and interacting with her friends for the most part, while we see the mysterious Michael Myers stalking her, appearing from out of nowhere, and we never really get to know why (without taking the sequels into account). In this remake, Rob Zombie attempts to explore little Michael Myers' psychology, giving our villain a soul and establishing the roots of his evilness, taking away all the mystery and darkness surrounding the character. The results are not good by any means and the only thing it proves, is that sometimes, mystery is scarier and more disturbing than having everything explained, especially if the explanation is as predictable as "he was raised in a bad environment". The audience doesn't want to be spoon fed and I think it's clear that one of the main reasons why the original villain was scary, it's because Michael Myers remained as an enigmatic character from the beginning until the end. In the original film, Myers appears to come from a seemingly normal family, but for some reason, he turns out a merciless killer anyway. While the original "Halloween" film is not my favorite, as I established before, I do give the film credit for giving us a villain that no one could ever sympathize with. This film basically tries to portrait Michael as a poor little thing who was poorly raised and eliminates any possibility of seeing him as a genuinely dark and fear-provoking character. This overexposure of Michael's early years lasts about 40 minutes, which gets tedious, it makes the villain more pitiful than frightening and in the end, they don't really manage to establish a point about his insanity all that well either.
Once again, Rob Zombie casts his wife, Sheri Moon Zombie, who was great in 'House of 1000', playing a Insane, trashy girl… but why did she have to play almost the exact same character here? I don't know what's the deal with Rob Zombie having the need to show us his wife stripping and being sexy all the time, maybe it's some kind of fetish they have and it's all good... but 'Halloween' was not the right choice to show Sherri Moon dancing and showing her body again. Another thing that Rob Zombie seems to borrow from his film "House of 1000 Corpses" is the fact that the characters are swearing most of the times and while I have nothing against foul language whatsoever, but I think it sounds repetitive and silly when we hear the f-word every 5 seconds. The amount of stupid lines that could be easily compared to some of the crappiest PG-rated films that came out throughout the last years.
I'm really disappointed. I didn't think I was going to hate it so much, but I do and it's a shame because I really wanted to like this film. Better luck next time, I guess. My noble advice for all fans of the original 'Halloween' movie is: Don't watch this remake if you're sensitive, because this hurts a lot. I know I felt cheated, even if I'm not a fan of Carpenter's version either.

Bad watch, won't watch again, and can't recommend unless you're just a huge Peter Pan fan and a completionist.
This is in that run of unnecessary sequels Disney did to make some cheap bucks; it's (clearly) also right after they started in with digital animation.
While they managed to capture Peter and the lost boys fairly well, Hook and Shmee are more like loose cartoony references to their former selves. Jane and Wendy seem to have the most detail put into their animation. The (classic) crocodile was replaced with an octopus (but still includes a suction cup version of tik-toking) by a visual director that barely understood what an octopus was.
Now, being that I'm generally opposed to the octopus in general, I happen to know a few things about octopus so giving it snail-like eyes, a beak AND teeth, as well as an over-sized tongue broke me a little. The behaviors were typically way off, to include swimming with it's arms above water (they typically help with the locomotion) and some weird physics when climbing the boat.
Also, we've pretty much pinpointed the inspiration for Neverland Island, which does actually include salt water crocodiles, but as it is in the Caribbean, this Giant Pacific Octopus is completely out of place.
The animation style was also shifting from scene to scene, object to object. Sometimes it is very jarring, a digital cell character atop a cg rendered log, or other times it's a cg rendered background against the digital cell animation of the ship (or vice versa) that really took me out of it as it just looked so unnatural. I'll site "Titan A.E." (Fox) and "Treasure Planet" (Disney) as too different examples where it was blended much more smoothly.
I actually like the premise better: Hook kidnap's Wendy's daughter, but the movie does so many weird things. Even though the original movie was officially set in the 1950s, Wendy grows at least 4-6 years to 18 to have a 12 year old daughter and a (generously) 3 year old boy, but the entire world travels backwards to WW2. Even if we retro the original setting, make Wendy....30?, that means the original occurred in 1929 at the latest, as this sequel could occur during 1945 at the latest, and I just did more math than I'm comfortable with to enjoy a movie.
And this bad movie has the audacity to drop like real dilemmas in the middle: obligation to family vs trustworthiness, acceptance of others, and this crazy mechanical suggestion about how The Fey of the island work. Does belief of faeries / pixies matter, is it disbelief that actually harms them?
Look, this isn't the worst thing to watch, but I honestly kind of regret my time spent on it.

'National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation', unlike predecessor 'National Lampoon’s European Vacation', is more akin to the original. A good watch it is, if still off from the first flick. The festive vibes are there, it's perhaps a bit too mean-spirited at times but overall works.
The cast are the cast, I don't think anyone stands out as being a great performer but they are all satisfactory. Chevy Chase is the obvious lead, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't rank his performance as anything overly higher than his co-stars. Interesting to see Julia Louis-Dreyfus appear, by the way.
All in all, there's enough there to entertain. The ending is suitably watchable, which is something I did feel was missing from the previous film.

It's kind of fitting as I decided to decline Disney's kind invitation to pay 33% more for my Disney+ that this is the last of their films that I watched. It sums up the mediocrity of this once innovative source of vibrant and creative animation - and presents us with a derivative version of a film that Jerry Lewis might have made in the 1960s if he'd owned "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" - and no, "Flubber" isn't even a dolphin! It all relies on the rather annoying performance of Robin Williams in the role of the madcap scientist "Prof. Brainard" who is determined to save his college from closure by coming up with a miracle invention. His woes don't just stop there, though. His fiancée "Sara" (Marcia Gay Harden) might just be seeing another man! Anyway, what he does manage to create is the eponymous, extremely independently elastic, green gunge that can be everything from load bearing to ultra-stretchy. Needless to say, this attracts the attention of rivals and so he must now focus on a two pronged offensive to protect his sludge and keep his gal. There's only so much the talented Williams can do here before the whole thing just sinks into it's own green goo. The script is borderline puerile and even a flying car can't really rescue this from a rather disappointing predictability. At least it's short and sweet, but really hasn't an original bone in it's flexi-body!