katharine-nichols
Joined Jan 2011
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews12
katharine-nichols's rating
I just saw Beetlejuice 2. I'm now going to do everything in my power to forget this movie exists. I didn't outright hate the movie, but I definitely didn't like it.
Positives first. Michael Keaton and Catherine O'Hara are the best part of the film. They perfectly slide back into their roles, and have all the funniest moments. More importantly, they seem to remember what Beetlejuice is (more on that later). There were some fun call backs towards the beginning of the film. I also have to praise the film for how they handled Charles Deets. This character was played by Jeffrey Jones in the original. As he's now a registered sex offender, they found a good way to not have him back while still using the character.
That's the end of the positives. Growing up, I would watch the original film and the animated tv series over and over again. They're both good, but very different in terms of tone and approach. It felt like the script writers had seen the show, read a synopsis of the original, then wrote the script for the sequel. The Maitlands not being in this film is explained in a throw away line that's a major plot hole. It seems like the reference to a "loop hole letting them move on" was the original plot. I'm guessing Alec Baldwin's legal troubles were a major issue in writing the film. With the exception of Keaton and O'Hara, the cast seems confused as to if this is a black comedy or supernatural teen romance.
I was very disappointed in Winona Ryder's return as Lydia. The film shows Lydia having grown up to be a psychic ghost hunter. She has an estranged daughter and a dead husband. Honestly, I had a hard time believing Lydia would ever be doing what she was doing for a career. It's shown that she's actually traumatized from the first film, and I just didn't buy it. Meanwhile, Jenna Ortega's storyline drags on as she builds a relationship with a local boy. It would have been better to cut Lydia and focus on her daughter. Finally, the side characters are badly mishandled. Justin Theroux and Willem Dafoe are fine, but their shtick gets very old by act 3. Monica Bellucci is there for some reason. That's almost all I can say about her character, she's there. If all 3 actors were cut from the film, it wouldn't change much.
Final few points. The soundtrack is beyond atrocious. It's heavy disco and 70s soft ballads. The music clashes so badly with the film that it actually destroyed a few of the scenes, making them cringe instead of funny. The effects are ok, but not impressive. It's mostly obvious CGI. The script is all over the place, and yet it isn't. Certain plot points are more or less copies of points from the first movie. When it isn't copying the original, the script loses the thread and leaves plot hole after plot hole.
Stream this one if you want to see it. If you love the original as much as I do, skip it. Pretend the sequel doesn't exist. The original Beetlejuice is a classic that never needed a sequel.
Positives first. Michael Keaton and Catherine O'Hara are the best part of the film. They perfectly slide back into their roles, and have all the funniest moments. More importantly, they seem to remember what Beetlejuice is (more on that later). There were some fun call backs towards the beginning of the film. I also have to praise the film for how they handled Charles Deets. This character was played by Jeffrey Jones in the original. As he's now a registered sex offender, they found a good way to not have him back while still using the character.
That's the end of the positives. Growing up, I would watch the original film and the animated tv series over and over again. They're both good, but very different in terms of tone and approach. It felt like the script writers had seen the show, read a synopsis of the original, then wrote the script for the sequel. The Maitlands not being in this film is explained in a throw away line that's a major plot hole. It seems like the reference to a "loop hole letting them move on" was the original plot. I'm guessing Alec Baldwin's legal troubles were a major issue in writing the film. With the exception of Keaton and O'Hara, the cast seems confused as to if this is a black comedy or supernatural teen romance.
I was very disappointed in Winona Ryder's return as Lydia. The film shows Lydia having grown up to be a psychic ghost hunter. She has an estranged daughter and a dead husband. Honestly, I had a hard time believing Lydia would ever be doing what she was doing for a career. It's shown that she's actually traumatized from the first film, and I just didn't buy it. Meanwhile, Jenna Ortega's storyline drags on as she builds a relationship with a local boy. It would have been better to cut Lydia and focus on her daughter. Finally, the side characters are badly mishandled. Justin Theroux and Willem Dafoe are fine, but their shtick gets very old by act 3. Monica Bellucci is there for some reason. That's almost all I can say about her character, she's there. If all 3 actors were cut from the film, it wouldn't change much.
Final few points. The soundtrack is beyond atrocious. It's heavy disco and 70s soft ballads. The music clashes so badly with the film that it actually destroyed a few of the scenes, making them cringe instead of funny. The effects are ok, but not impressive. It's mostly obvious CGI. The script is all over the place, and yet it isn't. Certain plot points are more or less copies of points from the first movie. When it isn't copying the original, the script loses the thread and leaves plot hole after plot hole.
Stream this one if you want to see it. If you love the original as much as I do, skip it. Pretend the sequel doesn't exist. The original Beetlejuice is a classic that never needed a sequel.
I did not like this movie at all. Yet again, Shyamalan thinks he's more clever than he is. Let's start with the positives. Josh Hartnett and Saleka are amazing in their roles. To be honest, the positive stars I'm giving are for their performances. I just wish those performances weren't in this movie. That is where my praise stops.
The way characters act and the actions they take stretch believability hard starting less than 15min into the film. When it's revealed why the cops arranged their set up at the concert, any true crime fan will be screaming at the screen in frustration. The entire film's concept would never happen. Beyond that, everyone seems to be incredibly unobservant. The authorities never question him when they absolutely should. Dumb luck also plays a major role in things.
Finally, this is unoriginal. The third act is a mash up of other films and parts of Dexter. One element is going to be particularly recognizable to horror fans as a plot lift from a famous slasher series. If you absolutely have to see this, wait for streaming. It's not worth seeing in the theater.
The way characters act and the actions they take stretch believability hard starting less than 15min into the film. When it's revealed why the cops arranged their set up at the concert, any true crime fan will be screaming at the screen in frustration. The entire film's concept would never happen. Beyond that, everyone seems to be incredibly unobservant. The authorities never question him when they absolutely should. Dumb luck also plays a major role in things.
Finally, this is unoriginal. The third act is a mash up of other films and parts of Dexter. One element is going to be particularly recognizable to horror fans as a plot lift from a famous slasher series. If you absolutely have to see this, wait for streaming. It's not worth seeing in the theater.
I liked the original 1996 film quite a bit and was skeptical about this sequel. Surprisingly, I actually like "Twisters" slightly more than the original. First off, Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell have fantastic chemistry on screen. They take time to build up their relationship and it feels natural. They're surrounded by a cast of interesting, fleshed out side characters that really add to the heart and soul of the film. The entire cast has such an easy flow with each other that the jokes in the script work really well. It's not a comedy, but it's got humor and charm. Second, the plot is pretty light, but vastly entertaining. I thought this film handled the science of tornadoes and potentially disrupting them far better than the original. The special effects are really well done. There are only a few small moments where you can tell some CGI had to be used, but it overall feels pretty real. Really my only real criticism is in regards to a small subplot involving the group Storm Par and their investors. It makes sense (sort of), but I also think you could cut it and rework that part of the story. It doesn't hurt the film, but it also doesn't add to it. Overall, this is a really fun movie with great leads that's slightly better than the original 1996 film. I actually recommend seeing this in the theater if you can, it's worth the ticket price to catch on big screen.