cabster21
Iscritto in data set 2005
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi3
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni2
Valutazione di cabster21
Adventures in Game Chasing takes you back to the 80's and 90's, the music, the films, the games that you grew up on.
Why do I say without the disappointment? Because this isn't a reboot of a film you loved and lets you down because the characters got old, just like you're doing, or isn't what you wanted from it. This is new, but familiar and pleasing.
I particularly liked the intro with the lead characters Billy and Jay are playing around and they're represented in a video game - it sets the tone well of the two leads.
The acting of several characters does let it down but the chemistry between the main four we're on the adventure with is good and natural, you believe they're friends. Thankfully some of the better performances comes from the characters we see the most, notable for me is Jay who seems natural and gives me Jay and Silent Bob vibes.
I enjoyed the trolls and meeting the redneck in the woods, again more throwbacks to various films we may have watched such as Ghoulies and it lengthens the adventure, touches on stoner movies which I like as a throwback too.
You'll be able to pick out further scenes that remind you of other classic films. When the Ghost Getters reveal their new car it's very reminiscent of Ghostbusters revealing Ecto1 and Dumb and Dumber when Lloyd swaps the van for a bike, with Harry's reaction ("and you totally redeem yourself!").
Some of the comedy can be a bit tough and the acting doesn't help, but I think it generally flows well enough that you aren't questioning it.
I think the score is really good and the choice of some established releases really helps the feel. A particular favourite is Stan Bush's Never Give up (2020), Stan performed Never Surrender from Kickboxer and it's very similar. If that doesn't take you back, nothing will.
Ultimately it's a feel-good, coming of age film that will make a lot of us remember what we used to love and maybe should take some time out to enjoy again.
(edit to fix my rating)
Why do I say without the disappointment? Because this isn't a reboot of a film you loved and lets you down because the characters got old, just like you're doing, or isn't what you wanted from it. This is new, but familiar and pleasing.
I particularly liked the intro with the lead characters Billy and Jay are playing around and they're represented in a video game - it sets the tone well of the two leads.
The acting of several characters does let it down but the chemistry between the main four we're on the adventure with is good and natural, you believe they're friends. Thankfully some of the better performances comes from the characters we see the most, notable for me is Jay who seems natural and gives me Jay and Silent Bob vibes.
I enjoyed the trolls and meeting the redneck in the woods, again more throwbacks to various films we may have watched such as Ghoulies and it lengthens the adventure, touches on stoner movies which I like as a throwback too.
You'll be able to pick out further scenes that remind you of other classic films. When the Ghost Getters reveal their new car it's very reminiscent of Ghostbusters revealing Ecto1 and Dumb and Dumber when Lloyd swaps the van for a bike, with Harry's reaction ("and you totally redeem yourself!").
Some of the comedy can be a bit tough and the acting doesn't help, but I think it generally flows well enough that you aren't questioning it.
I think the score is really good and the choice of some established releases really helps the feel. A particular favourite is Stan Bush's Never Give up (2020), Stan performed Never Surrender from Kickboxer and it's very similar. If that doesn't take you back, nothing will.
Ultimately it's a feel-good, coming of age film that will make a lot of us remember what we used to love and maybe should take some time out to enjoy again.
(edit to fix my rating)
The current top review of this says it ruins movies you haven't seen, in its defence, it's literally called Spoilers so I think you have to know what you're getting into.
But yes I didn't watch this when it was current but they were generally released at the time the movie first went to theatres so unless you were watching them on their opening weekends, this probably would contain spoilers. This is obviously not an issue if you watch them now.
This is billed as the anti review, so rather than reading what a critic has to say or anything else you're meant to get a collection of 'ordinary' (some of them are actors) opinions. The problem is, they kind of demonstrate a review is better, as really they just make fairly random remarks that you or I might make but it doesn't help you decide if you should see it or not, no real time is spent on this which feels strange.
So I do understand what its aim was but I feel like it massively missed a trick for what could be an interesting show for people interested in films/movies. The first episode is an intro to what the show is, at 2 minutes in we then get the discussion on the film start, this lasts 8 minutes and that includes small amounts of banter as Kevin moves around some of the guests.
There's a break, then we have (only in the first season) a review of a classic film from Kevin and why he likes it. This was easily the best part and lasted about 30 seconds.
We then have an interview with an actor, some weird science scene followed by a short cartoon.
They generally speaking are completely worthless episodes, they serve no purpose at all. If Kevin had a YouTube channel and decided to have a 10 minute interview with actors he knew and asked his neighbour what they thought of a recently released film, you'd have the same thing.
What I think it could have been is a film club with an interview of someone you don't normally hear from, a crew member as an example not an actor. Kevin could then have at least put his side to the discussion, unfortunately you could have replaced him with any generic presenter and it would feel exactly the same.
I did want to say watching this years later so you could if you wanted seek the film out first and watch it and then follow up with this might be interesting, but so little of the episode covers the film, it's of no purpose whatsoever.
If you have access to the first season I'd recommend skipping to the Criterion Lounge and see what he has to say about the classic films. Then if you're interested in the interviewee, watch that.
I'm giving it 5 because somewhere I like the idea and I like someone took a shot at it but they panicked and felt the need to allocate half the episode to an interview.
But yes I didn't watch this when it was current but they were generally released at the time the movie first went to theatres so unless you were watching them on their opening weekends, this probably would contain spoilers. This is obviously not an issue if you watch them now.
This is billed as the anti review, so rather than reading what a critic has to say or anything else you're meant to get a collection of 'ordinary' (some of them are actors) opinions. The problem is, they kind of demonstrate a review is better, as really they just make fairly random remarks that you or I might make but it doesn't help you decide if you should see it or not, no real time is spent on this which feels strange.
So I do understand what its aim was but I feel like it massively missed a trick for what could be an interesting show for people interested in films/movies. The first episode is an intro to what the show is, at 2 minutes in we then get the discussion on the film start, this lasts 8 minutes and that includes small amounts of banter as Kevin moves around some of the guests.
There's a break, then we have (only in the first season) a review of a classic film from Kevin and why he likes it. This was easily the best part and lasted about 30 seconds.
We then have an interview with an actor, some weird science scene followed by a short cartoon.
They generally speaking are completely worthless episodes, they serve no purpose at all. If Kevin had a YouTube channel and decided to have a 10 minute interview with actors he knew and asked his neighbour what they thought of a recently released film, you'd have the same thing.
What I think it could have been is a film club with an interview of someone you don't normally hear from, a crew member as an example not an actor. Kevin could then have at least put his side to the discussion, unfortunately you could have replaced him with any generic presenter and it would feel exactly the same.
I did want to say watching this years later so you could if you wanted seek the film out first and watch it and then follow up with this might be interesting, but so little of the episode covers the film, it's of no purpose whatsoever.
If you have access to the first season I'd recommend skipping to the Criterion Lounge and see what he has to say about the classic films. Then if you're interested in the interviewee, watch that.
I'm giving it 5 because somewhere I like the idea and I like someone took a shot at it but they panicked and felt the need to allocate half the episode to an interview.