Zanatos
अप्रैल 1999 को शामिल हुए
नई प्रोफ़ाइल में आपका स्वागत है
हमारे अपडेट अभी भी डेवलप हो रहे हैं. हालांकि प्रोफ़ाइलका पिछला संस्करण अब उपलब्ध नहीं है, हम सक्रिय रूप से सुधारों पर काम कर रहे हैं, और कुछ अनुपलब्ध सुविधाएं जल्द ही वापस आ जाएंगी! उनकी वापसी के लिए हमारे साथ बने रहें। इस बीच, रेटिंग विश्लेषण अभी भी हमारे iOS और Android ऐप्स पर उपलब्ध है, जो प्रोफ़ाइल पेज पर पाया जाता है. वर्ष और शैली के अनुसार अपने रेटिंग वितरण (ओं) को देखने के लिए, कृपया हमारा नया हेल्प गाइड देखें.
बैज2
बैज कमाने का तरीका जानने के लिए, यहां बैज सहायता पेज जाएं.
समीक्षाएं14
Zanatosकी रेटिंग
Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.
Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?
A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.
Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?
A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.
I am a little bit agitated about this movie. I really liked it, but I found myself angry at the filmmakers more than I normally would toward the filmmakers of a really terrible movie I watched. Why, you ask? Well, it is because this film was on its merry way of becoming a superb movie, worthy of a Zanatos score of 9 or 10, but they botched up the job. I will explain in a second, but first let me give an appropriate synopsis.
Two military officers respond to a call for help at a top secret mining operation in Antarctica that the United States government is conducting. The officers, weapons in hand, are dropped near the base and walk the rest of the way. When they arrive, they find that only two people are still left, a medical doctor and a tech engineer. A third member of the base's crew, someone closely associated with one of the two military officers, has apparently started killing off the rest of the crew. Strangely enough, he is also able to summon them back from the dead to do his bidding in preparation for a heinous ritual.
I was happily enjoying the thrills of this movie for a long time, but then the botch-job occurred. Without giving away too much, I will try to explain...but you might want to skip this paragraph to avoid me spoiling anything for you. Anyhow, for those who chose to continue reading, the first botch up was that they killed the wrong female character, giving the poor female character the lead. She was terribly weak in both performance and character (Chase Masterson was so much better). It seemed to unintentionally suggest that women were very inferior. Consider the scene where the two leads, being chased by the undead, step out in the Antarctic cold, and the Faith Ford character immediately has to be carried a few steps by the male lead. Even after they are indoors, he is carrying her because she is acting like she is unconscious. It was just the wrong thing to do, making women in general look helpless, which they are not. The second botch-job was the love theme. Movie makers constantly insist on the ideal ending by letting two characters fall in love. I'm sorry, but there was not only no chemistry for such a thing here, and falling in love under these circumstances is just impossible. This movie could have been spectacular had they left the falling-in-love theme out (and they could have easily written it so with the same results), and, especially, if the doctor and female military officer roles had been switched.
I remind you, though, that I did enjoy this movie. "Sometimes They Come Back...For More" did have thrills and was fun to watch. I guess I just sound so bitter because I know the filmmakers had the opportunity to make a great movie, but settled for a good one. Most films with a budget like this one's can't come close to making that claim, which is why it saddens me that this one missed out on being great. However, I still recommend fans of such films as "The Thing," and "Evil Dead" to check this one out. Zanatos's score: 7 out of 10.
Two military officers respond to a call for help at a top secret mining operation in Antarctica that the United States government is conducting. The officers, weapons in hand, are dropped near the base and walk the rest of the way. When they arrive, they find that only two people are still left, a medical doctor and a tech engineer. A third member of the base's crew, someone closely associated with one of the two military officers, has apparently started killing off the rest of the crew. Strangely enough, he is also able to summon them back from the dead to do his bidding in preparation for a heinous ritual.
I was happily enjoying the thrills of this movie for a long time, but then the botch-job occurred. Without giving away too much, I will try to explain...but you might want to skip this paragraph to avoid me spoiling anything for you. Anyhow, for those who chose to continue reading, the first botch up was that they killed the wrong female character, giving the poor female character the lead. She was terribly weak in both performance and character (Chase Masterson was so much better). It seemed to unintentionally suggest that women were very inferior. Consider the scene where the two leads, being chased by the undead, step out in the Antarctic cold, and the Faith Ford character immediately has to be carried a few steps by the male lead. Even after they are indoors, he is carrying her because she is acting like she is unconscious. It was just the wrong thing to do, making women in general look helpless, which they are not. The second botch-job was the love theme. Movie makers constantly insist on the ideal ending by letting two characters fall in love. I'm sorry, but there was not only no chemistry for such a thing here, and falling in love under these circumstances is just impossible. This movie could have been spectacular had they left the falling-in-love theme out (and they could have easily written it so with the same results), and, especially, if the doctor and female military officer roles had been switched.
I remind you, though, that I did enjoy this movie. "Sometimes They Come Back...For More" did have thrills and was fun to watch. I guess I just sound so bitter because I know the filmmakers had the opportunity to make a great movie, but settled for a good one. Most films with a budget like this one's can't come close to making that claim, which is why it saddens me that this one missed out on being great. However, I still recommend fans of such films as "The Thing," and "Evil Dead" to check this one out. Zanatos's score: 7 out of 10.
I must say, I was truly amazed by this movie. I've been puzzled as to why on Earth I bother watching all the Disney Channel movies. After such disappointments like "Can of Worms," "Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century," and the awful "Smart House," to name a few, I didn't think Disney could make a decent TV movie. But here it is! This movie really is genius. Instead of going from cheap comedy and typical overblown plots, Disney made something that is nice and, most importantly, can make this stone-faced critic laugh a lot.
Thirteen-year-old Charlie Boyle is a hockey-loving whiz kid so smart that he has been offered the chance to go to college early, to study, experiment, and even teach. naturally, he has a hard time fitting in with the college students, especially his hockey player roommate, who is in the physics class Charlie teaches. One day, he meets a girl and falls instantly in love, but, always being seen as a nerd and not having much success in the past with such matters, he pretends to be a trouble-maker and enrolls at the junior high the girl attends. Thus begins the fun as Charlie must constantly switch from one identity to the next so his lie is not discovered.
So how did Disney do it? How did they make something funny? Well, the cast is great, especially young Trevor Morgan as Charlie, who has some very clever and quick lines. A script that doesn't fall into embarrassing, unfunny, cliched situations for another, which is so typical for this type of Disney movie. Then again, maybe it was a science experiment they tried with a completely accidental result. If so, then hooray for science! Zanatos's score: 9/10!
Thirteen-year-old Charlie Boyle is a hockey-loving whiz kid so smart that he has been offered the chance to go to college early, to study, experiment, and even teach. naturally, he has a hard time fitting in with the college students, especially his hockey player roommate, who is in the physics class Charlie teaches. One day, he meets a girl and falls instantly in love, but, always being seen as a nerd and not having much success in the past with such matters, he pretends to be a trouble-maker and enrolls at the junior high the girl attends. Thus begins the fun as Charlie must constantly switch from one identity to the next so his lie is not discovered.
So how did Disney do it? How did they make something funny? Well, the cast is great, especially young Trevor Morgan as Charlie, who has some very clever and quick lines. A script that doesn't fall into embarrassing, unfunny, cliched situations for another, which is so typical for this type of Disney movie. Then again, maybe it was a science experiment they tried with a completely accidental result. If so, then hooray for science! Zanatos's score: 9/10!